Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria Case 352: Australian, British & NZ passports & Freedom of Expression to have own identity (ie: American Cyanmid (now Pfizer) v Ethicon Ltd & Winebox Inquiry etc) (14.12.2020)



... my name is donna...the governments have never cared about adopted people's freedom of expression to have our own... identity !!





I would along with British and Australian passports, in the name of Donna Bugat be eligible for a New Zealand passport in my name, at no cost to myself, by 18th December 2020, too.


The New Zealand (Australian, British & French) government(s) all have the relevant documents I was married to a New Zealander and lived there for ten years, and was later divorced in the UK, and have two sons, one born in each country, who are also Australian citizens.


It is obviously in the best interests of myself and my family to visit each other whenever possible, and my own life could only be dramatically improved by my being free to be Donna Bugat.


Kind Regards,



Donna Bugat

(formerly known as Babs Tucker)






I lived in the same small seaside village called Devonport on the North Shore of Auckland in what I prefer to call Aotearoa because it is such a beautiful name, as a man I knew years ago, called George Couttie, who became the central figure of the ‘Wine-box Inquiry’ there, because it was claimed he was the leaker.





... there is as a starting point, and in practise, a very considerable 'gap' in freedom of expression, generally, because a monarchy doesn't stand for election because they don't have enough family members, let alone who are resident, across the far from commonwealth...



It wasn’t long after, Mr Couttie who was a lawyer, privately said to me one day, that I should ask him if I ever needed any help, that he approached me, and told me his name had just been dramatically leaked to the press that he was clearly very shocked about, in what was called the ‘Winebox Inquiry’ that I didn’t really know anything about, and never discussed any details with him.



I do not personally believe that Mr Couttie was ever as it was claimed, a leaker ‘per se’ of any information, not least because it could not possibly have benefitted him in any way, to do so. He was instead, made into a scapegoat, in what has always appeared to be one of those contrived media circuses designed to go no-where, while a former politician Winston Peters took centre stage, obviously grandstanding for votes.



... American Cyanmid (now called Pfizer)  is a really puzzling case that, dramatically... contrasts with the british parliament's own legislative 'activism' in ss 132-138 socpa 2005 (now repealed) that sought to retrospectively & pre-emptively impose an incredibly violent 'injunction' to try and stop peaceniks freedom of expression... 


The spin in the ‘Winebox Inquiry’ about the Cook Islands had quite a significant cognitive disconnect, because it ‘overlooked’ the fact the New Zealand government is itself part of the British far from Commonwealth with a… monarchy who do not stand for election, and falsely claim all sorts of ‘immunities’ that also includes the ‘autonomous’ City of London and a notorious global offshore banking empire. The NZ governments own BNZ bank was part of the ‘Wine Box’ scandal too.


There are by comparison… many governments globally that have been ‘cooking the books’ for a very many decades, with the arbitrary and disproportionate conversions to adoption of vulnerable children who have no legal representation.




I remember when someone invited a former Russian Ambassador to New Zealand who had become a lecturer at a university to my home around the same time as the ‘Wine Box’ Inquiry. He undiplomatically wittered on about and tried to make light of what he said was intelligence services trying to drink… each other under the table, which is not quite how I remember anything. I always disapproved of the people who posed as my parents consuming considerable quantities of alcohol themselves, while trying to ply… pretty much… anyone else, with unlimited alcohol, which neither I nor my brother were remotely interested in, because we lived the reality as children.


It was well known I didn’t choose to return to the UK (I had never chosen to go there as a teenager, and didn’t want to follow the oil pipelines and live in Kazakhstan either) before my little sister I was raised separately from, and two nephews ’suddenly’ died in Australia which was devastating for my own and my brothers family with the ‘landmark’ R-V- Osip too. The shooter who executed my nephew bizarrely appealed his conviction and sentence, over failing to properly identify his target, before the British government ran exactly the same line of 'mistaken identity' over Jean Charles de Menezes in the UK. 





... the landmark 'out walking the dog in a public place case' in australia, because the courts... could not overturn the jury conviction, that was the precursor to the later jean charles de menezes execution in the uk that was attributed to 'mistaken identity' too and downgraded to a breach of 'health and safety'..



I guess it is extremely unusual to have landmark cases in different countries involving an adopted brother and sister raised by the intelligence services of both countries.


The High Court in the UK openly conceded in the Goldman Sachs case in the UK in 2013, that bigger companies who usually have an entourage of lawyers in tow, generally negotiate less taxes, because taxes are arbitrary anyway. 


My own personal view is that it could be better to collectively make politics itself, a voluntary unpaid public service, with a much smaller paid bureaucracy, with possibly a simplified tax system based solely on what people can afford to buy, with those taxes raised, completely ring fenced, to fund the best possible public services like health and social welfare, and infrastructure. There are no discernible additional benefits, for the general public, with over governance by an ever increasing bureaucracy anyway.


The Wine-box Inquiry was a complete waffle-a-thon about freedom of expression and in particular when you consider the American Cyanmid (now called Pfizer) case against Ethicon, which was itself another waffle-a-thon, compared to the British Parliament’s legislative ‘activism’ against we peaceniks with ss 1320138 SOCPA 2005 (now repealed) was effectively a gargantuan attempt by the government to very violently impose a pre-emptive injunction on free speech by the… entire state apparatus.




There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that there was no ‘public interest’ involved in the British government illegally leaking my adopted name to the press in the UK, with what was only in the entirety of the leak to the press… false information, repeated verbatim, and unquestioningly by the press that was all found to be ‘void ab initio’.


No-one ever even apologized for that original illegal ‘void ab initio’ leak that took on an overwhelming life of it’s own that only ever saw me punished.


It was something of a non starter to claim the way I was treated in the UK, was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ because there was a very dramatic cognitive disconnect in the government claims about the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes, at the same time the... same senior police very publicly targeted we peaceniks... that continued for a very many years, with politicians and their entourages of lawyers in tow, endlessly denouncing us.  


The ‘Dirty War’ in Parliament Square, Central London by the entire state apparatus made the ‘Winebox Inquiry’ and the American Cyanmid cases, purportedly over freedom of expression, look like walks in the park by comparison. The media were entirely complicit in the world first failed attempt fronted by Westminster to bring a private prosecution over my being in peaceful possession of an umbrella in a public space. The British Parliament specifically persecuted us in a public space always open to… all the public, and I was, even among peace campaigners singled out and specifically targeted, because even if any of us, were unlawfully arrested on a bogus excuse together, the government consistently always tried to drag my own cases out for as long as possible by inventing new cases and reversing the order cases were heard, you name it, they did it, and none of it was done by the government with the idea of protecting free speech in mind. 


The only thing that was really ‘landmark’ about our ‘Contempt of Court’ case in the High Court in the UK, was the fact it… admits !! the government refuse without lawful excuse to as a starting point, keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings in courts, for which we could not possibly be legally at ‘fault’ over. Indeed it was the British Parliament and entire state apparatus who relentlessly and unlawfully.. complained about there being any accurate and contemporaneous record of our legal proceedings in courts, because it is not actually possible for a government to successfully bring politically motivated prosecutions against the same people… repeatedly, with an accurate and contemporaneous record of proceedings in courts.


The British government did in any legal sense... murder Brian because a) they injured him and b) he never received proper medical treatment for that injury, so he never recovered from it, before c) they illegally and maliciously prosecuted him too, d) knowing his immune system was completely compromised, and e) in the knowledge he was very frail and had cancer !! because f) they... intended and wanted to try and cause him as much... stress and distress as possible, in the... knowledge that would make it harder for him to get better, because stress is very harmful. We tried to hide as much as we could from Brian while he was in Germany, because he said and knew they would just go to town on me the minute he left the country which was true, but he had no choice but to go abroad to try and get some medical treatment, and we had obviously discussed that he would need to take it easier in the future, and do more beyond Parliament Square, which it was only the government stopping really.




The British Parliament’s City of London brief Martin Forshaw literally did anything he could unlawfully do, to try and sidestep any accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings in courts, and particularly in front of any jury, because he did know there was no way he could ever put the email he sent me in front of any jury, because his email to me that would not be entertained by any jury, would not only professionally embarrass him.




District Judge Michael Snow and the AG similarly baulked over any accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings in courts, because he did illegally imprison me without legal representation or trial, that even with him falsifying court records, still doesn’t stand up to the slightest legal scrutiny.


He knew he was never going to go on… national television to repeat his later threat that he would imprison anyone who did keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings in court, because he did typically sidestep the legal niceties of legal representation and trial, because he knew it was not illegal for… anyone to make an accurate and contemporaneous record of him really saying he would imprison anyone without legal representation or trial. It was unlawful for the AG Grieve to try threatening me, because someone did make an accurate and contemporaneous record, that was widely witnessed anyway.


The legal system should properly be focused on ensuring accurate and contemporaneous records of legal proceedings.


When Forshaw bizarrely let rip at me in the High Court about people lawfully making an accurate contemporaneous record of legal proceedings, the High Court Judge professed to not know what the problem was because he was recording the hearing himself, so a ‘compromise’ was agreed that I would not record that hearing, although the Judge did not say that anyone else could not, including Mr Forshaw, which proved our point that District Judge Snow had lied and the AG knew it, and should not have threatened me.


They also knew we had conclusively proved in Southwark Crown Court way back on 13 December 2007, the government would where possible, on their own premises, illegally destroy our own footage, deny the government have footage, and edit theirs including of any sound involving inconvenient facts, like conversations, and so on and so forth, because they had from the start only operated on the basis of making up lies to try and violently stop our freedom of expression.





... the government claimed this was a 'landmark' Contempt of Court case, but only in... old cobblers, because it was only the magistrates court who were at fault for refusing without lawful excuse to keep an accurate and contemporaneous... record of legal proceedings in court, that was their responsibility and in... their control to do, so it was unlawful to try and transfer fault to the victim whose control it is outside and...  unless any member of the public just happened to record proceedings...


The High Court Judges would routinely decamp from the Court if there was something they preferred not to hear or could not avoid hearing, because the government and judges could not afford in our cases to declare a Contempt in the High Court itself, because hearings are sufficiently recorded, and they would have had to give me legal representation which the government devoted all their time trying to stop. It took us two years to get one transcript and then tape from the High Court that the Judge didn’t want to hand over (and which both had been tampered with but still gave the essence) because Brian was properly complaining about the Judge illegally denying me legal representation, that every other High Court case from that time about that legislation had, that I properly did not ‘concede’ was compatible with Human Rights, and was indeed repealed.


The point is the British Parliament would never have even tried using legislation like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, against any media outlet or multinational company, who would have an entourage of lawyers slap it down in about five seconds flat.


The legal reality is the accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings in courts, must be top of the list in a world, before governments demand greater surveillance of the public, because the government have a duty to first serve and protect the public with a functioning legal system, that recognises the reasonable self defence of the peace and harmony of the rule of law that naturally exists for the benefit of everyone. 




The truth is governments would not use arbitrary and disproportionate conversions to adoptions that are only used on vulnerable children who have no legal representation including that is independent, on any multinational corporations, because they would be immediately slapped down, by an entourage of lawyers.


The governments have never cared about adopted people's freedom of expression to have our own... identity !!





Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria (Case 352): My ‘without prejudice’ email for Victorian Ombudsman (& former IPCC Commissioner in UK) to fax to ECHR reversing global conversions to adoption that can be replaced by tailor made guardianships (13.12.2020