Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Premier (& fmr Health Minister) Andrews cannot legally sign a statutory declaration denying he is illegally trying to stop my recovering from cancer, and causing me life threatening harm in Australia, because he is hiding I established a universal… legal precedent with… my High Court Habeas Corpus… Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc, that trumps adoption… court order imposed on me, by the State of Victoria, in Australia, so there needs to be a new registry to record people’s genuine… choices, because I am & was entitled to renounce draconian adoption legislation anywhere including while in my own home in Breizh, France, or while in Parliament Square, Central London in the UK, which should be re-named Brian Haw Square (05.01.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
There is no legitimate aim convincingly established in civil or criminal law to use draconian adoption legislation to forever label someone adopted with the very serious use of a court order on someone labeled adopted who cannot commit any known civil or criminal offence by refusing to be labelled adopted.
There should be a new register that lists people who are labelled adopted and renounce draconian adoption legislation, with real penalties for politicians who persist in claiming draconian adoption legislation can be used against someone labelled adopted, against our will.
I proved the BBC would from Mothers Day on 26th March 2006 in the UK, onwards, and including by editing their own recording at a State Opening of the British Parliament on 25th May 2010 illegally publish false reports about me. The BBC maliciously did that knowing they could never repeat their false reports they published about me, in… any court, and particularly before a jury, because they were only always illegally trying to hide… my jury lawsuit.
I think the worst lie that politicians and the press sell is that to be what they call “successful” you have to trample over and hurt the weakest and most vulnerable people.
A former British PM Blair did know he was legally obliged to resign on 27th March 2006, instead of grandstanding in front of the Australian Parliament:
I was summoned on an ‘International Women’s Day’ on 8th March 2007 to Southwark Crown Court in the UK, when a Judge Wadsworth (who claimed he saw me twice a day in Parliament Square, Central London, because he passed by going to and from the court) informed me Parliament Square, Central London was my ‘home’ (that also meant bail conditions could not be imposed on me, as a means to stop me being in Parliament Square, Central London) which was a ruling no court or government then ever explicitly challenged.
The BBC never apologized for the false report they published about me, on Mothers Day 2006, which meant that lie exponentially grew, in a particularly shocking way on 19th July 2007:
I was literally kidnapped on 19th July 2007, from a court room, during live proceedings at South Western Magistrates Court, to stop me giving… evidence, during a malicious prosecution against me, that had been used to impose the unlawful bail conditions which had earlier been dismissed by Southwark Crown Court on 8th March 2007. I subsequently also won that case at South Western Magistrates Court (where an unlawful arrest from 31st January 2007 had resulted in the malicious prosecution to illegally try and impose bail conditions in attempts to imprison me by the back-door) when the CPS conceded I was correct when I said “the government had… put in place… a sequence of events that only put my life at risk” (which is true of adoption being imposed on me too) The government had with the likes of Special Branch & Sky News et al in tow, literally tried “to suffragette me” (the surname of a British suffragette is the same as one of the real family names in Australia) when agents of the state suddenly pushed me without warning from behind, into a roadway, before I was then unable to breathe etc etc. It seems from what the government said, that there was a political plot to literally try and suffragette me in front of the PM Blair’s vehicle, before a PMQ’s but that went awry because I was leaving Parliament Square before the PM arrived for PMQ’s, so I was suddenly pushed from behind into a roadway anyway !! The only CCTV the government ever dared to very briefly show me, is very eerie and creepy with the trench coat brigade and their earpieces hovering around, accompanied by the press who lined up in front of a statue of Churchill when they all had to then try and cover up what had happened after an entirely different scenario had obviously been planned. I formally complained when Murdoch published a photo in the Sunday Times talking about Constitutional Reform & the EU, without explaining the… context of the photo, which is about when they tried to suffragette me.
It was self evident the fact politicians did not want us in Parliament Square, Central London was for political rather than any legal reasons. The politicians did not want to look out their windows and be able to see members of the public who disagreed with them, in any way, and politicians also wanted to be able to pose for the odd photo or grandstand in Parliament Square, from time to time, while waxing lyrical about the wonders of free speech, in the UK, without being inconvenienced by anything else mere members of the public might be saying that was contrary to the ‘official’ narrative of two supposedly different main political parts, and all their tra-la-la. That political mindset proved problematic for politicians when for example neither the former Labour Mayor of London, Livingstone who was followed by the Tory Johnson both… opposed our forcing the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books. There was no difference between Livingstone or Johnson as Mayors of London over ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, as indeed there was no difference between Johnson as Mayor of London and Starmer as the DPP over ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 before Starmer became the phoney Leader of the Opposition to Johnson as the PM in the UK. Of course Corbyn who was also a phoney Leader of the Labour Opposition and particularly during Brexit, not least since he had always been opposed to the EU (like the Tory Minister for Vitol who then pretended he wanted the UK to stay in the EU) was always silent about what his comrade Livingstone did to Brian and myself. The Minister for Vitol who is part of Viva Energy in Victoria, Australia resigned as Minister for Europe as soon as he had helped to force me to leave my own own home in Breizh, France (because he was paid $160,000 pounds to commit perjury, which is part of how I got my High Court Habeas corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008, which was why Johnson also ascended to become PM when I was forced to leave my own home in Breizh, France. Those politicians include the many reasons why draconian adoption legislation which is made by politicians and is only ever about whatever suits politicians, is such a bad idea. It’s not possible for any politician to guarantee there will never be any politicians who are not corrupt, but they do have a legal responsibility to have proper checks and balances to protect civilians from being harmed by the consequences of bad legislation, which politicians have not bothered about. My own lived experience of corrupt politicians has led me to conclude that the only genuine possibility for wider systemic change, that most people would agree with, is to have an International Civil Court with the choice of juries, to transform the global legal landscape, because politicians simply are not as a starting point caring about any vulnerable children, which is why the child protection systems are so dreadful.
The politicians in Westminster refused to identify the male assailant who violently punched me in the head:
I have had since I was born, a more human and universal idea than a Mr Mandela claimed he had in 1962 about wanting a… statue !! of himself in Parliament Square, Central London, for goodness sakes.
The day the British government briefly took down 7ft high harris fencing (they sought they had used to illegally try and confine our campaign) before putting it back up again on 29th August 2007, when they had finished grandstanding over the unveiling off their statue of a Mr Mandela:
The Metropolitan police surrounded me and took my banner off me on 29th August 2007, because they did not want ‘dignitaries’ to have to walk past me with my banner after they had carefully ‘curated’ who would be where, in the geographical layout of Parliament Square, Central London for the unveiling of their statue of a Mr Mandela, the primary purpose of which, incredibly turned out to be, to try and hide the existence of our live campaign.
The government didn’t want ‘dignitaries’ to have to pass either members of our campaign or our banners, while making their not so ‘grand’ entrance at the back of Parliament Square, they had reserved for themselves on that day. So they made less objections about people and banners that ‘dignitaries’ would not have to pass, elsewhere in the square. My banner was later returned after the British PM Brown and a Mr Mandela had finished grandstanding together, because the government did not want any court cases about arrests or stealing banners on the day they were grandstanding about a statue for another ‘foreigner’. It turned out however that the BBC had not been able to edit out from a live feed they had, about what I did publicly say about the British PM Brown, while being threatened by police standing over me, when I didn’t even have a loudspeaker, that was something Nelson Mandela would not say to Brown on 29th August 2007, when a Mr Mandela did have a microphone. A Mr Mandela was simply willing to say whatever politicians wanted him to say, just so that he could have his dream of a statue of himself unveiled in Parliament Square in Central London.
I think it is highly unlikely that Steve Biko died how police originally claimed, when he was held in police custody in South Africa.
The 29th of August 2007, and the unveiling of a statue:
The graceless bonhomie between the former British PM Brown and a Mr Mandela was not a good look, and probably explains why the government generally keep such events, like an unveiling of statues and state openings of parliament, relatively low key, to try and avoid attracting public protests including about hypocrisy.
The former British Labour PM Brown, and a Mr Mandela, did in their perverse juxtaposition of the truth in Parliament Square, Central London on 29th August 2007, both publicly endorse misogyny and male violence. They were no different from a former Mayor of London, and person called Livingstone (who was also there that day) and one of his cronies called a Ms Abbott who identifies herself as a person of colour, and who voted with the DUP in Northern Ireland for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to be used against us in Parliament Square, Central London, on the British mainland.
The French Tour De France passed by Parliament Square, in Central London in July 2007:
The facts are, I was personally unlawfully arrested in Parliament Square, Central London, not only by white police officers, although it mainly was (and many were over 6ft) but also by people who identified themselves as from a considerable number of different ethnicities over the years. I can’t ever remember being arrested by someone with an Italian background, although I remember many of the white British police officers were repeat offenders because they had the motive to try and stop our lawsuits. I was effectively a walking target, because of the political cover-up over Mothers Day, that was also related to draconian adoption legislation. The ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation would undoubtedly have been finished much earlier, if I had not had the ball and chain of draconian adoption legislation too.
The politicians and monarchy arranged for Brian and myself to be in the High Court several months later on 25th October 2007, so the now latest monarch did not also find himself ‘professionally embarrassed’ at his quid pro quo unveiling of a statue of Lloyd George, that also took place in Parliament Square, Central London.
(The ’case hearing’ that Brian and myself were attending in the High Court in London on 25th October 2007 was the umpteenth one about what became a quite unique, published Contempt of Court against Brian and myself that shows the government were desperately trying to avoid a legally binding High Court ruling, that unless politicians make it mandatory to have proceedings in Magistrates Courts recorded, it is unlawful to accuse a member of the public of a ‘Contempt of Court’ when it is, what is said, that is… disputed.
A newspaper report of the ‘jurisdictional’ waffle in court:
Brian and I disputed what it was claimed a Judge said and what it was claimed we said, which was clearly a dispute that was not of our making or our fault, that could never have been legally resolved by way of a re-hearing in either a Magistrates, Crown or High Court. The concocted case arose from the fact a Judge had already placed ‘sine die’ six summons he knew he had illegally issued against me on a Friday 23rd March 2007, he knew I had not received, for a court hearing before him on Monday 26th March 200…7 when I was only by happenstance, at the court that had illegally issued summons, against me, because I was helping out a friend, who had received summons.
One of the reasons I was falsely accused in a Magistrates Court, of a Contempt of Court, to belatedly also distract from the fact the court had refused to actually hand over a copy of their dodgy summons to me, so I could at least have the opportunity to consult with and have a duty solicitor present, was because the government were trying to find other ways to try and unlawfully imprison me because they couldn’t consistently try and use ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (void ab initio on 14th September 2006) or bail conditions (void ab initio on 8th March 2007) to try and stop me peacefully campaigning, or from my lawsuits resulting from the unlawful arrests etc of me.
I didn’t suddenly become the criminal the British government (with the connivance of Australian politicians) portrayed me as, in Parliament Square, Central London, after only having had one minor speeding ticket, and a single parking fine in my whole life.
It had obviously been a further abuse of process to have a show trial about the alleged Contempt of Court on 26th March 200…7, on 29th March 2007 in the same Magistrates Court, before the Crown & High Court then argued about ‘jurisdiction’ to try and keep kicking that particular political hot potato back and forth. It is clearly wholly malicious that politicians who are always legislating to spy on pretty much everyone else, refuse to make it mandatory to have accurate and contemporaneous recordings of something as serious as legal proceedings in Magistrates Courts in the UK. The politicians in the UK are unbelievably flippant about the use of and conduct of Magistrates Courts in the UK, that can… imprison someone.
It’s obviously also perverse that even in higher courts in the UK, it’s only very wealthy people who can afford to buy any court transcripts (or recordings) without needing to ask and have ’permission’ from judges to have anything. We had to argue for years to get some transcripts/parts of transcripts and when they included too much of the politically expedient ‘inaudible’, then audio recordings from judges in both Crown and High Courts in the UK, because what the Judges ruled was either not consistent etc with a) what was said by a Judge in court, or b) the evidence given in court or c) both. The politicians having members of the Judiciary in for example the higher courts in the UK grandstanding in front of cameras to read out a published ruling, anyone can read for themselves, is not the same as making transcripts and recordings of the actual court proceedings, available to members of the public, in a timely manner, and free of charge, so what is supposed to be justice is not reduced to who you know and how wealthy they might happen to be.
It simply cannot be legal to prosecute someone for a Contempt of Court in the Magistrates Court in the UK, when the only reason for that is there is a dispute about what was said, because politicians refuse to make it mandatory to record legal proceedings in Magistrates Courts in the UK.
Livingstone’s comrades criticised the Lloyd George statue, in Parliament Square, Central London, from the safety of a BBC pulpit or Johnson’s Telegraph, but notably did not criticise what Labour’s Livingstone et al were doing to Brian and myself. A former BBC journalist called Andrew Gilligan did in the London Evening Standard, on 25th October 2007 pretend to criticise what Livingstone was doing to Brian and myself, but then not what Johnson while still a Telegraph journalist when posing as Mayor of London, and then Gilligan as Johnson’s mouthpiece, did to Brian and myself.
I was careful to ensure, the following month at a State Opening of Parliament on 6th November 2007 that I could be and was out of the reach of any agents of the state for long enough in case the opportunity did arise for me to say, a single sentence to the monarch at that time. As it so happened, the monarch who was with her partner was curiously peering out at Brian and myself, when their state coach strayed unusually close as it passed by when leaving the Palaces of Westminster. So the monarch obviously did hear what I said that no-one had ever said to their faces, let alone in front of their entourage of many thousands of members of their military. A pompous man with an ear piece did then confront me, to complain I had “spoiled his day”. I could only calmly respond “that could not possibly be a big deal because he along with the inequality of the institution of monarchy were literally destroying the lives of millions of innocent civilians every single day”. I could not be and was not arrested for a single sentence no-one ever wanted to run the risk could be repeated on a court record somewhere.
(The unveiling of new statues, all took place during the same period in 2007, when the con-artist Mark Wallinger also had his State Britain rip-off, of what we did, which had incorrectly envisaged our no longer campaigning in Parliament Square, Central London on display in the Duveen Gallery in the Tate Britain. It was eye opening one day when Brian and I went there, that the Tate Britain was running a children’s workshop ‘teaching’ what was clearly a government approved version of campaigning. So the government was and continued to spend vast sums of public money to try and undermine us, and instead of settling our growing number of lawsuits)
It turned out the monarch had at that time, also become compromised by signing a scandalous GLA Act in 1999 in the UK that purported politicians could give away public land in Parliament Square, Central London to a monarch in their personal capacity, in return for peerages. (A Jeroen Weimar who helped draft the GLA Act in 1999 in the UK, now works in government in Victoria, Australia after there were too many financial scandals involving him related specifically to the GLA Act from 1999 he helped draft that he personally… financially benefited from too)
Of course, the soap opera of monarchy with all their posturing about succession for public consumption, have never had any problem whatsoever with draconian adoption legislation being used to label someone adopted, so however anyone looks at it, the person labeled adopted can be relegated from being an heir in our own families, to a spare in the false families imposed on us by a state.
It later became obvious that searches the British government subsequently used against us, as just another excuse to be near us for long enough to harass and bully us, while trying to find some false pretext or another to unlawfully arrest us, were also illegal, because they were done for political, rather than legal reasons. (The politicians could never even produce so much as a witness statement from the police who had sniffer dogs) We were for example never searched when the government had arranged for all the people only protesting about the G20 in 2009 to be in the City of London, instead of Parliament Square, Central London, on the evening the entire entourage for the G20 passed alongside Parliament Square, and through a Treasury & Foreign Office entrance there, to go to a banquet. I remember the area was unusually quiet, because of course all the traffic was stopped at some point, and the press were camped out on College Green. The only other people who appeared to be members of the public, in the vicinity, were a small group of people behind a barrier, waving Israeli flags, who were at the junction of a road behind Parliament Square and another road leading to Parliament Square and the entrance the G20 entourage would need to pass through to go to their banquet. In fact, the small group of people at that road junction, actually looked as though they were more generally strategically placed for security reasons. This was because of course you would have had to have known a) when and where a banquet for the G20 was going to take place, and then b) the path the entourage would have to take before then, that would most likely be delayed at the entrance, by the sheer numbers of people and their vehicles attending, which did seem to be endless. It was an odd choice of venue, unless you were a government who had managed to send most people who might protest just the G20 to somewhere else like the City of London instead.
I said to Brian, as we surveyed all the snipers who were visibly standing on the surrounding rooftops, for the G20 banquet, that I didn’t have any speech planned, and he just said to me, that the words will come to you. And so it came to pass that when I happened to find myself standing only a few feet away, from for example a President of the United States who happened to find himself stuck in a queue in his ‘beast’ while having the window down, and waiting to enter the side entrance for a banquet, for the G20, by Parliament Square, of all places, that I then spoke from the heart, about torture.
The politicians obviously did not ever plan to let me ever speak in… a court about torture, because of course I was repeatedly tortured myself too, so politicians did not want to have me arrested either, when I spoke about torture, while the G20 happened to be queuing to go into their banquet.
The former Australian Labour PM at the time of the G20 in London, was Rudd (who claims it was his idea to have a larger G20 talking shop ? to no doubt try and give himself more opportunity to grandstand) who now wants to hide behind legal immunity as an Australian Ambassador to the United States.
Australia is a surprisingly wealthy but politically mean spirited country, when you consider there is despite a relatively small population, such an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth that has primarily come from resources.
A former Australian PM called Rudd was willing and did agree to betray Australian citizens, which is why he met with and was endorsed by Murdoch et al with an ’007’ campaign, in a general election, before I nevertheless got my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK. When I was then illegally refused legal representation on 23rd June 2010, while everyone was also by then refusing to hand over the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, Rudd was then forced to resign in the revolving ‘jurisdictional’ doors related to me. It is true that the former Australian PM was not honest with members of the public about the true reason for spinning the revolving PM’s in Australia in 2010, while there were two State Openings of Parliament in the UK in 2009, but none in 2011.
The reason Rudd never wanted me to have the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, was because he was absolutely always complicit.
I remember when the British PM Brown, on whose watch the torture and attempted murder of me happened, although it was actually entirely orchestrated by Johnson when he was Mayor of London and boss of the top cops, came past when he left Number Ten. I was on my own because Brian and everyone else had gone to Downing Street, to say their cheerios (I was previously unlawfully arrested outside Downing Street during the switch between Blair and Brown) so I was quietly reading a book, when I realised all the traffic had stopped. I looked up and a large vehicle with Brown inside was essentially passing very slowly in front of me right by the kerb, so I just quietly put my middle finger in the air, before then continuing to read my book.
The British Labour’s Brown and the Tories Johnson were an increasingly violent and thuggish… combination, at the very least trying to do outdo each other in their extreme violence towards me. The extreme violence towards me had escalated dramatically when Murdoch literally put a price on my head on 19th July 200… 9, when he recklessly published the threat of a politician he agreed… to support to ‘remove’ us without any caveats on how they proposed that was done.
The reason politicians tortured and attempted to murder me in the UK, with the knowledge of Australian politicians, like Rudd, is because of the… legal precedent my case created on Mothers Day 2006, with regard to draconian adoption legislation.
Murdoch has always had his ‘celebrity’ groupies support draconian adoption legislation too, because his own family matriarch pretended to be a ‘philanthropist’ in that well worn tax dodge, when it so happens, she was directly involved in my being illegally adopted.
It is of course a matter of public record that I did help force the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books in the UK, that not a single politician, celebrity, police officer, prosecutor, judge, or member of the monarchy ever congratulated myself or others for doing. That was a rare example of, although we suffered enormously, and indeed Brian horrifically died, he with the most money did not ultimately ‘win’ the politically motivated legal proceedings over legislation that was ‘ultra vires’ and then some.
This was an interesting attempt by the monarchy et al, to try and ‘re-interpret’ ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, along the way, with everything they would like it to be:
I remember Brian did discuss with me, when the government ridiculously tried to belatedly say in 2010, the monarch could claim personal ownership of part of Parliament Square, that we should claim ownership of all of Parliament Square, so that it would remain a public space in perpetuity. A few Law Lords from the increasingly disgraced free for all, still called the British House of Lords (that included a Lord Kerr, who originally drafted Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, that Westminster must have always planned to use for their Brexit omni-shambles) would obviously only ever bend whichever way a monarch wanted them to, had indeed also sought in 2009 to say Parliament Square, was the postal address, of their new Supreme Court in the UK, which was odd. The Supreme Court in Victoria, is not the highest court in Australia, but the Supreme Court in the UK, which was once within the House of Lords, is the highest court in the UK. The Privy Council which means all sorts of things involving politicians and members of the monarchy these days had previously been used as a term to describe some judges, who were mostly British, being a final court of appeal for the ‘colonies’ of the British Commonwealth. It is possible that what was supposed to be ‘ownership’ of the various parts of Parliament Square in Central London by… the public, had over the years, become ‘confused’ by the back and forth etc between church and state, and their various departments.
The monarchist Murdoch who published this false report below about what -I- had managed to say in the High Court on 21st June 2010, that was never challenged there before I was illegally denied legal representation on 23rd June 2010 (all of which is primarily why the Court of Appeal had to remit the case of Brian and myself back to the High Court, although the government did not want us to ‘leapfrog’ to the ECHR either, and particularly with such a scandal involving the monarchy) never produced any statistics about what the percentage of people who pose as parents of people labelled adopted, are monarchists. But every last one of the people who posed as members of the ‘Democracy Village’ (that included journalists from the likes of the Daily Mail too, who confessed outside the confines of a witness stand in a court part of what they did while posing as members of ‘Democracy Village’) that was illegally used by Westminster against Brian and myself, were if there was one feature all their members had in common, was that they were all completely and utterly… monarchists:
It seems more likely than not, that the British Brexit that came six years to the day, after I was illegally denied legal representation in the High Court in the UK, on 23rd June 2010 before I was then exiled from the UK because of that, was about Westminster maintaining the inequality of the institutions of monarchy, and the British House of Lords, along with of course, what must be the largest collection of what are called ‘tax havens’.
(I did actually discover while living in my own home, in my very own nature lovers paradise in Breizh, France, that amazingly included the privilege of my own forest too with the most amazing symphony of birdsong I have ever heard, that I preferred living in a European country on the Mediterranean. I have lived through so much political hostility throughout my life about my having a Mediterranean background, because draconian adoption legislation means politicians will not even ‘officially’ acknowledge my Mediterranean background, which is obviously also deeply offensive to me. It was a very real and very emotional awakening for me living in my own home in Breizh, France, that I have never had the time or space to properly enjoy and process)
The current United States President of a republic, is the senator for the state of Delaware, which is an American ‘tax haven’ which is also popular with many wealthy British people in Westminster and the British House of Lords too, and most monarchies in Europe, are, or have what are considered ’tax havens’, but nothing quite like the British ‘collection’ of ‘tax havens’.
It is true that everyone in the UK who is racist, voted for Brexit, although not everyone who voted for Brexit is racist, but it is also true, that many people who voted for Brexit do also seem to be monarchist, because there are certainly not many people who say they voted for Brexit, who are not also openly monarchists. All the politicians in the main ‘Leave EU’ political party in the UK, were all monarchists, like the Farage-a-drama with what was his UKIP political party too. They were not really any different from the fact the majority of the revolving doors in the ‘news’ media organizations in Westminster have always been monarchist, so someone who calls thenself a ‘journalist’ who changes between the news media organizations, who employ them, would not really find much difference in the ‘official’ narrative in Westminster. It is also not unusual for people whose families are not European in origin and did not migrate to the UK from the EU, but instead migrated from Commonwealth countries who have relatively few Europeans, or people of European origin or descent, and consider they are part of a superior caste/class system too, did, along with being monarchists vote for Brexit too, so much of Brexit seems to be about maintaining the inequality of the institution of class/caste systems, like the monarchy too. I always found it not only odd, when Brexit monarchists said they opposed an EU President who is nor directly elected by the public, but support the unelected British monarchy instead.
It has always been far harder to speak out publicly against the institution of monarchy in the UK, than it is even about Brexit, where at least half the public have been left without any even political representation over Brexit, while politicians and press obsess about the monarchy. We had already experienced what became the extreme views of Brexit, by politicians the press, over the land scandal in Parliament Square. It was impossible as someone labelled adopted which has meant all sorts of things, depending on what any politician might claim on any given day, including when I lived in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and then Breizh, in France, for me to then try and compute what Brexit would additionally mean, because that can mean anything depending of whatever suits any politicians, may want Brexit to mean on any given day too.
The monarchists would obviously prefer a monarchy over anything else, including civilian populations enjoying free movement within for example the EU, which has never been promoted for civilians across for example the British far from Commonwealth. There are only some examples of limited freedom of movement for civilians in the British Commonwealth between for example Australia and New Zealand. I do not personally believe Westminster would willingly watch Australia become a republic, which is why they keep the monarch’s foot in the door with a nonsensical and not so Australian Constitution that falsely claims there needs to be a referendum to no longer have a monarchy as head of state in Australia. That is clearly untrue, because if the members of the British monarchy had any good manners, they would simply renounce the institution of monarchy that only represents inequality, and stand for election as politicians in the UK, instead. It must be unlikely the not so Australian Constitution could be bent to include the for example members of a Danish monarchy if the British monarchy renounced the institution of monarchy in the UK and throughout the far from Commonwealth.
The recent escalation of British-led royal soap opera following so closely on the heels of and trying to distract from so much including Brexit, does see politicians, and members of the monarchy along with the press trying to control and stop any public debate about a republic, in for example Australia or the UK. The nonsense about monarchy has stopped Australia becoming a republic since the name Australia was first used… several hundred years ago, in the same era as for example the French revolution.
It’s fair to say I didn’t miss the institution of monarchy while living in my own home in Breizh, France too.
The institution of adoption however, even more unfortunately exists in republics -and- monarchies, including the European Union and the British far from Commonwealth.
I did despite the Supreme Court in the UK, belatedly trying to claim Parliament Square as their postal address, also have a High Court Order saying service of information and documents to and from me in legal proceedings could be done by… email. That was the final admission ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 had really been finished too, on Mothers Day 2006. So there really was never any reason why the for example CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me was never sent by email to me. I could never have possibly had to physically be or stay in the UK to receive the CCTV of the premeditated torture and attempted murder of me, in the UK, in the same way I could not legally be forced to return to Australia on the pretext a court could not record my renouncing draconian adoption legislation while I was living in my own hime in Breizh, France, but ‘might’ withdraw a wholly disproportionate adoption court order imposed on me.
I always personally think of Parliament Square, Central London as Brian Haw Square, so my own personal and legal view about Parliament Square is it should be re-named Brian Haw Square, so it could remain a public space, in public hands, in perpetuity.
Brian and I never supported any statues (Westminster did eventually include a single female statue in Parliament Square too, which was unveiled by another former PM, called TM on a different International Women’s Day, many years, after I was exiled from the UK) We always said people should (be able to) visibly campaign in our town squares, outside a Parliament, instead of our town squares outside for example a Parliament being cluttered and filled with the tokenism of statues. The tokenism of statues was quite similar to the hollow emptiness of the con-artist Wallinger’s State Britain rip-off of us, which did not include we human people who were still actually campaigning in Parliament Square. Brian had what would become a final falling out with Wallinger when Brian was transferred from St Thomas’ Hospital to Guys and a bed next to an Independent ‘art critic’ (before Brian was forced to go to Germany to try and get medical treatment) who was visited by Wallinger, who never went to the hospital to visit Brian. Wallinger didn’t like it when Brian then asked him who he (Wallinger) thought the State Britain rip-off that it turned out was paid for by the government, belonged to. A City of London banker, Lord Myners (who claimed he was adopted which I think Myners was conflicted about) was Chair of the Guardian ‘news’ media organisation, and Chair of the Tate Trustees too when the con-artist Wallinger did his who State Britain rip-off routine about what he said we were doing in Parliament Square, Central London. Thankfully Wallinger never spoke to me, after I said to him when he was so obnoxious to Brian, just imagine what people would have said if the Nazis had put evidence of their committing Genocide in an Art gallery they then tried to pass of as ‘Art’. I told him if he ever dared to put the State Britain rip off on display ever again, I would take his copy of my two pink banners and destroy them, because he could never legally have me arrested and taken to court for doing that.
Brian and I originally had to go to Hendon Police Academy where I was treated like a criminal and escorted everywhere inside there, when we had to witness what police claimed they had and were refusing to give back to us in Parliament Square, Central London, despite losing the relevant ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 cases (legally privileged information was routinely stolen by the government too):
After Brian died and I was in the High Court, I did make an order that the government return the two Banksy’s the government stole from Parliament Square to Banksy, which they did do, so Banksy could do whatever else he wanted to do with them, that I never wanted to know. It was common knowledge the government wanted to use the Banksy’s to pay off anyone who harmed Brian or myself, so I did at least try to limit some of the financial incentive for others to harm me, and what Brian and I did do together. It is true that I was threatened by a government lawyer outside the court, before I went into the court, and ordered the return of the Bansky’s to Banksy, but I wasn’t specifically threatened about the Banksy’s, although I did feel personally threatened if I did not offload the Banksy’s to Banksy, because the government really was trying to use them to pay off anyone who would harm me. I just viewed that as a human life is more important than a single banner or two because I often had I often had to replace banners I made myself, that the government… repeatedly stole, so my own priority was to focus on being able to continue campaigning while obviously wherever possible or necessary trying to limit the financial incentive to harm me.
I knew an email sent to me on 7th September 2007 by a Ms McKenzie who is/was a political appointment at the DOJ in Victoria, was illegal. A Ms McKenzie who claimed to simply be speaking on behalf of the for example Victorian Attorney General, was clearly not true. A Ms McKenzie had an undeclared conflict of interest she illegally failed to disclose in the email, that predated her political appointment at the DOJ, when she worked as a media adviser for the former Australian PM Rudd when she too, covered up the existence of my High Court Habeas Corpus High Court Order from 16th April 2008 and the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me. I doubt Ms Mackenzie ever for example put in any public tender to be a media adviser for the former Australian PM Rudd.
A Ms McKenzie has obviously been advised, along with the former PM Rudd that in light of my own statutory declarations etc, they cannot sign statutory declarations to try and claim they do not have very serious conflicts of interest, including Rudd trying to hide behind legal immunity which is why Rudd really wants to become the Australian Ambassador to the United States.
The con-artist Ms Woolridge who was a former Liberal politician in Victoria, who was also responsible for political language about adoption being focused on avoiding compensation in the Federal Labour Rudd & Gillard political administrations too, has been using adopted people and draconian adoption legislation to make vast sums of money for herself, from questionable NGO’s like the Australian branch of Global Citizen who pose as a charity, and another one, that claims to be about promoting gender equality:
It is clear that in my own case, the Australian governments/s are breaching and have breached ‘non refoulement’ in forcing me to return to Australia and remain here, on the pretext that a) a court in Australia could not record my renouncing draconian adoption legislation, while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France, but b) a court in Victoria Australia ‘might’ at the most withdraw an adoption court order, if I was in Victoria, Australia, and agreed to do whatever politicians and courts wanted me to do, so it was more likely than not that I would be subject to further serious political persecution, in Australia, which is what has happened. It is just legally an absurdity that any politician would think it is possible to label someone adopted as a vulnerable child to then arbitrarily impose a highly unusual lifelong… court order on someone who has committed no crime.
It is clear that politicians want to hide the legal precedent that my case made on Mothers Day 2006, because it cannot be legal to force someone adopted in Australia who has then always lived overseas since being a teenager (I was sent overseas as a teenager, and without a copy of the adoption court order, all because I refused to go along with being labelled adopted for any reason) to then be forced to leave my own home in Breizh, France and return to Australia where politicians had also already illegally covered up British politicians torturing and attempting to murder me in the UK, before Australian politicians intentionally made me homeless in Australia (by falsifying government records in Australia to make it appear I own real estate in Australia too, so the politicians really cannot be… trusted at all, to make or keep proper records) including during a global pandemic (which politicians also used as an… excuse !! to stop me leaving the country while telling everyone else they could go home) and when I got cancer, while still spinning the false pretext a court ‘might’ agree (which supposes that my free… choice as an adult can still be usurped by a court) to withdraw a lifelong adoption court order if I agree, under duress !! to whatever politicians and courts want.
In fact, and law, the Premier in Victoria who is not a health professional of any kind, let alone an impartial one is illegally using draconian adoption legislation, to continue to cause me life threatening harm, including to try and to stop me from recovering from cancer by causing me soooooo much unnecessary stress and distress etc etc etc etc, that is directly related to a seriously illegal adoption… court order imposed by draconian adoption legislation for what are purely political reasons.
A… court order is always a very serious matter.
** It is incredibly serious that if I was in a hospital, like I previously was, the Premier of Victoria in Australia, would actually try to use draconian adoption legislation to illegally try and oppose me getting a court order while I was in a hospital, which I would have liked to have had while I was previously in hospital, directing that I need to be left alone by politicians and their draconian adoption legislation, so I can for example try to recover from for example cancer **
The adoption… court order imposed on me has only ever always put my life at an unacceptable risk.
*** I do not reasonably believe the Premier of Victoria, can sign a statutory declaration denying he is intentionally using draconian adoption legislation to try and cause me life threatening harm ***
My High Court Habeas Corpus… Court Order from 16th April 2008 already legally trumps the adoption… court order imposed on me.
I remember the British Mayor of London, Johnson, after he had orchestrated the torture and attempted murder of me, in the UK, with the connivance of politicians in Australia, then continued to maliciously prosecute Brian for peacefully having been in Parliament Square, Central London, while he was in a medically induced coma in a hospital in Bremen in Germany, before he died.
My own parents had automatically aged out within a year, of now defunct different legislation used against them, that nevertheless resulted in my being labelled adopted despite the fact it was claimed I could never automatically or otherwise simply age out of adoption at adulthood or any other time. The whole vicious business of adoption is very different from any other family court proceedings about minors.
I cannot see how draconian adoption legislation has ever served anything other than whatever suits politicians.
It is undeniable that politicians have never acted or intended to act fairly with regard to their draconian adoption legislation because they have still not even made it mandatory for people to be told they are adopted, including regardless of any medical problems that political refusal to provide any even opportunity to access, medical information, may worsen medical outcomes.
I also reasonably believe that politicians who have used draconian adoption legislation to impose something so serious such as adoption court orders, must be legally liable for any the universal costs of healthcare anywhere for someone labelled adopted who complains of not having had the genuine choice to say no. This is because there can only legally be the… presumption politicians have adversely affected the health of those labelled adopted who have been refused any genuine… choice to say no.
There are only political… excuses about draconian adoption legislation that ’sidestep’ the legal necessity for people labelled ‘adopted’ to have a genuine… choice to say no, at any time, for any reason, while anywhere, to draconian adoption legislation.
The legal truth is I acquired any additional nationalities and citizenships, beyond those I had at birth, in my own right.
There has never been a single case where adoption is the only possible option, but my case does prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all the cases of adoption are potentially life-threatening, and particularly if you peacefully refuse to go along with being labelled adopted by others.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 