Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: The politicians know I have recurrent cancer diagnosis, after Tudor Harvey Barnett who posed as my godfather while Director General of ASIO, used Ivanov spy scandal in 1983, to have draconian adoption legislation in Victoria in 1984 based on me, to illegally try & avoid lawsuits so Murdoch could also get American citizenship in 1985 (because Murdoch family trafficked me to intelligence services) that all started to unravel/be reversed when I was in High Court in UK on 21st June 2010 before Rudd lied in the revolving doors of Australian politics on 23rd June 2010 to illegally try & hide torture & attempted murder etc of me & the cover up of that CCTV etc, so I am entitled to Supreme Court Habeas Corpus Court Order in Victoria (there were no… legal grounds to make me return to Victoria, or Australia) to release me from adoption court order, and provide compensation incl free unlimited universal health care of my choosing, along with $1.4 billion dollars to oversee a proper… legal process to help try & stop what happened to me happening to anyone else labelled adopted by politicians et al (08.06.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The draconian adoption legislation from 1984 in Victoria, Australia was based on me, to illegally try and circumvent lawsuits because I was trafficked by the Murdoch family to the intelligence services.
There are no… legal grounds to for example claim someone labelled adopted as a small child in Australia needs to as an adult, return to the state in Australia, where the adoption originated, or anywhere else in Australia, to be free from adoption.
I was legally entitled to an… official court extract of my adoption case 352, before I was sent 12000 miles away from Australia as a teenager. The only reason I was not given an official court extract of my adoption case 352 was because a) I could not have been sent 12000 miles away and b) even if I had been forced 12000 miles away, I could have filed an official extract of a court record in another court in another country.
(There is a serious problem in forcing someone like myself who has been trafficked, to return to Australia, on essentially a false pretext that it is somehow necessary to argue with the government -if- I should be free from being labelled adopted. People like myself who are married in one country – which in my case was New Zealand – can after all be divorced in another country – which in my case was the UK – without having to return to the country we were married in etc etc because the intention has to be to minimise any disruption to the lives of those affected. that has to be the same for people labelled adopted. I don’t… personally view being able to be released from an adoption court order, legally any different from being divorced because I was not biologically related to either the people who posed as my parents or my ex-husband. The reality in my own case, is, it was the difficulty on trying to extricate myself from the unreasonably onerous adoption court order that made me not want another piece of paper from a government about marriage. A government does not have the legal standing/locus standii to say they can invent whatever ‘family’ they like, or suits them)
It really should not be a big deal for people labelled adopted to be immediately released upon notifying of our wish to be released, from an adoption court order, regardless of where we live, and without needing to go to court etc etc. There only really needs to be international oversight of that, which I would personally use compensation to organise.
The politicians knew while I was in Parliament Square, Central London that a civil jury about the repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that was incompatible with the peace and harmony of the rule of law because it was actually designed to hide the political agreement (admitted in the House of Lords on 23rd May 2000 that by then included the monarchy because of the GLA Act 1999) to… ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London would also like my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 free me from the adoption court order in Victoria, Australia. The politicians and courts in either country had no legitimate say with regard to my decision as an adult over whether or not I wanted to be labelled adopted (although in my own case I was trafficked)
It is self evident ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was unlawful because it was political window dressing to hide there was already a political agreement (including the monarchy) to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
The draconian adoption legislation from 1984 in Victoria, that was based on me was similarly political window dressing to illegally try and avoid lawsuits, as was ss 141-150 & 151 of the PRSR Act 2011 in the UK that was also based on me, after I helped repeal ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that was based on Brian.
The former Australian PM Rudd did not tell the truth on the 23rd June 2010, in the revolving doors in Australian politics, after I was on the witness stand in the Rolls Court in the High Court on 21st June 2010 in the UK, when the British government was ironically using their phoney ‘Democracy Village’ of ‘undercovers’ of all sorts including ‘journalists’ (like the Daily Mail et al) to maliciously prosecute Brian and I.
Rudd already knew on the 23rd June 2010 that he was directly involved in hiding the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me. The State of Victoria are undeniably legally liable for compensation including unlimited free universal health care of my choosing because they haven’t cared about any harm caused by the draconian adoption legislation or covering up the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me. The politicians cannot say/deny that the torture and attempted murder of me over draconian adoption legislation and the cover up over that has caused the diagnosis of recurrent cancer etc etc etc etc.
It wasn’t that Murdoch didn’t back Rudd, because of course Murdoch did back Rudd, but it is arguable that Rudd was no longer any use to Murdoch. The Murdoch family’s henchman Lord Marlesford was using the House of Lords in July 2011 to advocate against me, in Parliament during Leveson, because my case once again became a problem for the Murdoch family and their BskyB.
The former Australian PM Rudd and the state of Victoria cannot claim they ever cared about or should be trusted about my health !! and the State of Victoria is legally liable because they put in place a sequence of events that it was foreseeable, they… knew put my life at risk:
It’s too late for politicians to argue over whether or not what they did caused or contributed to my diagnosis of recurrent cancer because they colluded to withhold evidence for… political reasons.
The only reason Rudd was able to while still the Australian FM launder the money over the cover up of the torture and attempted murder of me through the dodgy Ingeus in the UK (instead of for example HQ11X00563 being legally settled) was because Ingeus was one of the private companies who only made money from solely… government contracts as long as Rudd et al imposed the not so ‘mutual obligations’. It is self evident, the only way private companies can profit from welfare is through government contracts that guarantee income through imposing not so ‘mutual obligations’. There would obviously not be/or have been any Ingeus Rudd could have laundered the money through unless the private companies were guaranteed government money through the not so ‘mutual obligations’. The… reason Rudd was involved in the torture and attempted murder of me also included he could not risk me being on welfare in the UK while having outstanding lawsuits. Rudd obviously had an undeclared conflict of interest while Australian PM & FM that he still does as Ambassador. The reality I’d opportunistic politicians illegally turned what is supposed to be a safety net called welfare into just another privatized opportunity for profiteering without any checks or balances or safeguards. (It’s probably a good idea to end ‘mutual obligations’ because politicians can have a financial interest in/ be financial beneficiaries of private companies profiting from what are solely government contracts)
The politicians have no recognized defence in law to what they have done, and a jury who was properly directed could not conclude that politicians who colluded in the torture and attempted murder of me, and then the cover up of that, then might somehow care at some point, care about or could be trusted with my health and wellbeing !! I would personally use $1.4 billion dollars compensation to help international oversight of a proper legal process for people who wanted to be released from their adoption court order.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 