Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria (Case 352 etc): My ex-parte permanent injunctions against adoption legislation & British House of Lords (incl. interim injunctions against DJCS, Angus Knight & Murdoch’s Newscorp to suspend national & international adoptions while claiming compensation that includes recognising me as a Magistrate) restores legal rights of adopted people of any race, religion, politics or none to register to live in Universal Old City of Jerusalem (02.08.2021)
Re: The County Court registrar is legally obliged to inform me by email if & how much money I need to pay in pre-existing case, for ex-parte permanent injunctions (or Interim injunctions including a jury, against DJCS, Angus Knight and Murdoch’s Newscorp that include suspending national and international adoption and adoption legislation while I claim compensation)
My name is Donna.
I… knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong.
There are no legal grounds that exist for adoption that is purely political persecution, because adoption legislation can be construed so widely it can be forcibly used against any group out of political favour at any given time.
It is simply not legal to legislate a list of unreasonable demands that include forcing adopted people to pretend adult strangers are parents and families, that in any other circumstances would at the very least be considered coercive and exploitative.
I was forced to leave Australia as a… teenager because I reject adoption (legislation) before I was… forced to sell my own home and exiled from the UK in 2013 for the same reason (before the EU referendum) and stopped from living in my own home in the Breton Woods in France, when I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019, while it is still only wholly unreasonable… adoption legislation stopping me from living in my own home, during… a global pandemic.
It was absolutely unlawful for politicians to illegally leak my adopted name on Mothers Day 2006 with anything but an accurate and contemporaneous legal record of legal proceedings.
The reason there is only evidence the political classes lied about…. legal proceedings with regard to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (now repealed) on Mothers Day 2006 is because I am adopted. Once that lie had been told, it was never untold, because it is all about escalating political persecution, because the consequences of that lie just grew, seriously compounding the harm already caused by adoption.
The public officials and politicians who are corrupt are just elevated to the British House of Lords to legislate their own cover-ups, so they keep their pensions etc
Lord Blair was only elevated to the British House of Lords to help legislate a cover up so he could keep his own… pension.
The fact the British House of Lords is and could only be institutionally corrupt which is supported by all the political parties means politics is… literally owned entirely by private companies like Murdoch’s Newscorp.
The obvious problem is… adoption legislation that is reckless and intended to be permanent. So even if and when there is a political facade of revocations they do not address or redress the physical and emotional harm caused including by changing nationalities and citizenships because the only focus of what is a wholly political policy that as a starting point oversteps legal boundaries with a disproportionate interference, is on prolonging adoption legislation.
There are people who adopt and politicians who do not want to admit they do not have the legal authority that adoption legislation purports it can confer on them, by taking away the rights from the adopted person who is an autonomous person in our own right.
It is reasonable redress to have permanent injunctions (that are for example equally… valid in Australia and Europe) against adoption legislation and the British House of Lords along with suing for financial compensation, that includes being able to live in peace in my own…. home.
A permanent injunction from an Australian court against adoption legislation must also be against the British House of Lords, because otherwise they will just keep churning out adoption legislation that does not recognise Australian adoption legislation, and adversely affects Australian citizens too.
It cannot legally be that adoption legislation is the only legislation in the world an adopted person cannot get an ex-parte permanent injunction (or interim injunctions) against regardless of any and all prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm caused.
The legal and political rights of everyone are improved, while no-one is physically or emotionally harmed, with permanent injunctions against adoption legislation and the British House of Lords who bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The political classes would always illegally discriminate against me to stop me ever being a Magistrate, because I am a law abiding adopted person who peacefully repealed similar ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK, despite not being a Magistrate, District, Crown, High Court or Supreme Court judge.
It is in the interests of justice for my compensation to include me being legally recognised as a Magistrate, with compensation including the salary of a Magistrate backdated to at least Mothers Day 2006, because of the discriminatory nature of adoption legislation.
___________________
There’s no way the quisling Livingstone would have dared say what he was recorded saying (101 manipulative excuses) if I was a Magistrate or it was before a jury:
The quisling Livingstone and his cronies who proved to be fond of a trial by media, when politicians lied about WMD, and he never genuinely opposed war, were never going to be repeating what he said (101 manipulative excuses etc) in this recording (which does explain why there was the cover-up of the violent attack on me by an unknown male assailant he illegally refused to identify) before any jury, in any court of law.
Livingstone would have been indicted to stand trial before a Crown Court jury:
The legal reality is the British PM and Leader of the Opposition (who even after their “new powers” on 16th January 2012 failed, so Murdoch’s Lord Marlesford was forced to lie in the British House of Lords on 27th January 2012, Johnson then went and sought to give a veneer of legality by publishing some “byelaws” on 30th January 2012 while also illegally using private security companies all of which they) lost in their malicious prosecution against me before a Crown Court… jury on 8th May 2013.
This is what happened after the BBC lied on Mothers Day 2006 so they had to invent “new powers” they all inevitably lied about on 16th January 2012, because they were still covering up Mothers Day 2006.
Lord Rothermere:
It’s really the British House of Lords occupying the British Parliament with the London-centric blah di blah, of a Mr S. Hammond (trying to cover up he had punched me) and Johnson (trying to cover up he tortured and attempted to murder me):
On 27th January 2012 Murdoch’s mouthpiece Lord Marlesford (NED of the Times) explaining their “new powers” are not going so well (despite the fact Johnson et al falsely claimed they had injunctions protecting their own and Lord Rothermere’s undercover operation on 16th January 2012 while ‘forgetting’ there was no stay on HQ11X00563):
So up pops Johnson (and a private security company) with yet another… facade of “new powers” on 30th January 2012:
In fact I won the malicious prosecution brought against me by the British PM and Leader of the Opposition Starmer (the former London Mayor & DPP when they were also illegally using a private security company) before a Crown Court jury on 8th May 2013 over any of their supposed “powers” (without even needing to be in the country or appear in person):
It’s fair to say the torture and attempted murder of me highlights the political persecution being ‘overlooked’.
There was never any ‘difference’ between Livingstone and his cronies and Johnson and his cronies:
My repeal in the UK proved it is necessary to have permanent injunctions against adoption legislation because the British PM, Leader of the Opposition and other political parties support the wholly undemocratic Anglo-centric British House of Lords that as part of and arguably the Leaders of the UN (Westminster invented the UN) legislate whatever they like, including unworkable adoption legislation, that includes illegally stopping Mediterranean people choosing to be Jewish and living in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean where Jewish people have always lived.
The Jewish State that is the only one on the Mediterranean and in the world was founded in… reasonable self defence that is not in any way contingent on the deliberately ambiguous Balfour Declaration, or Zionism.
The British monarch dismissed one Australian politician who was a PM without a… single politician bringing any legal challenge, so it is legally possible for me as an adopted person and Australian citizen to have a permanent injunction against the whole British House of Lords, who have no recognised defence in any court of law, including before a jury. The legal reality is the British House of Lords cannot legislate whatever terms they like for… themselves including the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 because they have an obvious… undeclared conflict of interest in legislating indefinitely in favour of… themselves.
The British House of Lords consistently ban peaceful protest in Parliament Square, Central London in the same way they would keep churning out adoption legislation, because they obviously cannot credibly protest publicly in favour of democracy there, while they are themselves illegally occupying the British Parliament. There is no comparable institution to the British House of Lords in for example Australia, the EU or United States, yet the British House of Lords who have no respect for the freedom of movement of law abiding civilians anywhere, including in reasonable self defence, demand what are not really free trade deals with everyone, that require acknowledging the wholly undemocratic British House of Lords as legitimate.
There are no legal or political grounds for Australian citizens to accept any trade deal that includes the British House of Lords -and- any adoption legislation they want to impose.
It is perfectly possible for politicians in both countries to accept my permanent injunction against adoption legislation that means a) people who have been adopted choose to keep or renounce whatever… original or additional accrued nationalities and citizenships we have/had, while b) there is nothing stopping British and Australian politicians agreeing to in advance confer any… additional nationalities and citizenships on vulnerable children in out of home care to match any carers (in legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood) that do not erase the vulnerable child’s original existing nationalities and citizenships, all of which only the named person can voluntarily choose to singularly, or in an instance of claiming political asylum, wholly renounce.
Where governments have failed to hand over a) basic disclosures b) without conditions c) in a timely manner, any presumption is in… favour of the adopted person.
The only history there is of the British House of Lords is that they have never been interested in any trade deals that benefit any law abiding members of the public at home or elsewhere.
There are no legal or political grounds for adoption legislation or the British House of Lords, because permanent injunctions against both would peacefully restore law abiding civilians political and legal rights with legally reviewable custody arrangements for all vulnerable children in out of home care, along with a publicly elected second chamber with fixed terms like the House of Commons.
The British House of Lords are willing to cause prolonged life threatening harm to law abiding civilians despite the fact the law abiding members of what is an institutionally corrupt British House of Lords would be able to stand for public election themselves, while adopted people would have the basic right most other people do to claim political asylum anywhere.
The DJCS, Angus Knight and Murdoch’s Newscorp (I do not personally know of any discernible legal difference between the British state broadcaster called the BBC, and Murdoch’s Newscorp beyond their names, because Murdoch’s Newscorp has always in my own case, profited from repeating what they knew to be lies by the BBC, and vice-versa) financially profit from selectively using information about adoption and adoption legislation for political financial reasons because adoption legislation which is disproportionate is based on making political promises for financial gain, that rely on the absence of the safeguards that are supposed to exist with the peace and harmony of the rule of law.
The DJCS and Angus Knight are essentially protecting Murdoch.
The State of Victoria (who have the same political parties in the Federal government) are legally obliged to suspend national and international adoptions with at the very least an interim injunction, because the DJCS have never kept accurate and contemporaneous records including about the original nationalities and citizenships of adopted people, while trying to force people who reject adoption legislation to use the political trap of revocations which does not address or redress any physical and emotional harm caused or any legal problems with nationalities and citizenships because the only purpose of revocations are to suggest the political classes have legitimacy to enact adoption legislation, and to prolong that wholly political and unworkable adoption legislation.
The DJCS are willing to cover up the torture and attempted murder of me because I am an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation, while Angus Knight made a multi-million pound deal with the British PM and journalist, Johnson, along with Murdoch’s Newscorp, that is… contingent on Angus Knight being in breach of their legal obligation to provide evidence of a functioning whistleblower policy, which they cannot do, because they are hiding the torture and attempted murder of me because I reject adoption legislation.
It is clear the DJCS and Angus Knight will only use my sensitive personal information for their own… political profit.
It is self evident Angus Knight who are protecting Johnson, Murdoch and the British House of Lords, owe me £300 million pounds compensation, while Murdoch’s Newscorp owes me $3 billion dollars compensation.
It is not legal for any government department or state to continue adoptions and the use of adoption legislation in the knowledge it is being used to cover up the torture and attempted murder of an adopted person. No-one is physically or emotionally harmed by permanent injunctions against adoption legislation and the British House of Lords.
It is usual for a Magistrate etc to dictate a court order, including that is from a member of the public, that administrative court staff then put together in whatever is the usual legal form, before it is then agreed it can include a signature from the judicial person with a court stamp.
I could register a 24/7 Magistrates office in the Universal Old City of Jerusalem where adopted people from anywhere can voluntarily transfer their sensitive personal information to be safeguarded, they can have always have access to.
There certainly needs to be a Magistrate who was adopted and didn’t support adoption legislation, who has considerable field experience.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 