Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI- : The latest Australian PM and so called Leader of the Opposition et al who are all the same to me, are legally obliged to stop covering up the political torture and attempted murder of me in the UK, because Australia can peacefully and naturally evolve into a kinder genuinely democratic republic free from adoption, and nuclear weapons or nuclear power too (26.09.2021)
I am an adopted ‘mixed race’ Mediterranean female born in Carlton, Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia.
I was raised by the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents.
I am a normal human being who was illegally being denied my own peaceful freedom of expression in a court which was essential for me to be able to entirely naturally and legally reject the unsociable political construct of legally unworkable adoption legislation. So I mostly lived outdoors as a child because the unreasonable demands made by so many adult strangers about adoption is unnatural, and overwhelming, and makes no sense.
The fact some children are sent off to the most expensive boarding school until adulthood by wealthy parents, with no financial expense spared, so they can be groomed for political office etc does not automatically guarantee the best possible outcome for anyone, is a cautionary tale a lifetime of dystopian adoption could not possibly be legally imposed on others. Even most soldiers have to be paid money before they agree as adults to be separated from their own families, possibly forever.
It is self evident the arbitrary use of wholly unnecessary and legally unworkable adoption legislation can be criminally negligent to the physical and emotional health and well-being of an adopted person and particularly if you are an adopted person who entirely naturally and legally always rejects dystopian political adoption legislation, and its accompanying historical revisionism.
It is only legally possible to have legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children who are separated from their own parents that could happen to anyone for many reasons, that if that had been recognised and acknowledged in my own case would have resulted in my being re-united with my own family when I was a small child.
Instead, I was sent away from Australia as a teenager to punish me further by continuing to isolate me from my own family and friends because I entirely naturally and legally reject adoption legislation, so I have lived my whole adult life in exile from Australia.
The true facts, circumstances and law of my then unprecedented Mothers Day 26th March 2006 civil jury lawsuit in the UK, does mean it is beyond all reasonable doubt that if my peaceful freedom of expression in a court which was still essential then, had gone ahead, it would have resulted in my having permanent injunctions against firstly adoption legislation in at the very least the British Commonwealth and Europe, and secondly also ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 then, along with thirdly the British House of Lords. It would also have resulted in the natural evolution of a genuinely democratic republic in Australia, because we did in addition conclusively prove in the ‘contested public space’ of Parliament Square, Central London, the revolving doors of the Palace of Westminster could not legitimately impose any State Governors, Governor General, or unelected Lords or monarchy.
The sum total of just (by way of example) two published and clearly disingenuous and inextricably linked cases of extraordinary ‘legal gymnastics’ about me in the UK can most easily be summarized as:
a) a District Judge who had failed without reasonable excuse to in over a year (it having already been been from February 22nd 2006 – 26th March 2007 by then, which was not a ‘reasonable time’ to wait either) to produce a ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 ‘case stated’ for the High Court that could never have gone ahead with a High Court hearing with me there….
…. could not then legally cite me for an alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ only he could have committed in the Magistrates Court when he illegally issued a further six ss 132-18 SOCPA 2005 summons on Friday 23rd March 2007, listed for 26th March 2007… after Brian and myself went to the Magistrates Court on Friday 23rd March 2007 to get legitimate summons against the two Blairs (the PM & top cop) that I only learned about by happenstance on 26th March 2007.
That is why the District Judge left the court without saying anything on 26th March 2007, before we were unlawfully arrested by private security guards after we asked for and waited to be given a further listing date from court staff for another bogus hearing over the six bogus ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons, which the District Judge knew he could not have. The District Judge had no choice but to place the six bogus ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons ‘sine die’ on 26th March 2007, after we had been unlawfully arrested, and before he passed the buck over the alleged Contempt of Court case he had never cited us over himself, to another District Judge on the 29th March 2007.
The six bogus ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons on 26th March 2007 had to be placed ’sine die’ including because it had already been determined including by the courts that the unlawful arrest of me on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 was ‘void ab initio’ etc etc
b) and so 26th March 2007 became the ‘highly unusual’ bogus ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case in the High Court in the UK about me when the same High Court judges who falsely claimed they could instead of Brian and myself ‘choose’ the legal jurisdiction in just our case (when the choice was really ours….
… then also falsely claimed the government could not contact me (another “unable to locate”) for their hearing in the High Court with the DPP over the unusually delayed ‘case stated’ from 22nd February 2006 that (the High Court had previously claimed was ‘lost’ in ‘Town and Country planning’) that High Court staff then agreed was also ‘null and void’ because the court with the same Judges who had previously contacted me, had not in that case, contacted me.
The High Court case over the alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ from 26th March 2007 that in fact first took place after numerous hearings including 25th October 2007, on 28th November 2007 (before the judgement we should have seen in advance but did not, was published on 12th December 2007) was before the same Judges who then had their High Court hearing of the far earlier and well outdated ‘case stated’ from 22nd February 2006 on 30th November 2007 they ‘forgot’ to invite me to, or show me their judgement in advance of it being published in that instance in remarkable haste, on the same day, not least since it was all from way back on 22nd February 2006.
It’s not really legally possible to explain the ‘legal gymnastics’ that resulted in a ‘case stated’ from as far back as 22nd February 2006, being illegally ‘overtaken’ at all stages in the Magistrates and High Court by an alleged Contempt of Court case involving the same District Judge over a year later on 26th March 2007.
I nevertheless unexpectedly ’won’ a/the far wider ‘decisive’ legal ‘victory’ more generally anyway at Southwark Crown Court the very next day on 13th December 2007)
In fact, it was the two Blairs et al who had illegally failed to disclose in any court proceedings there was a prior political agreement before ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to illegally try and ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London where I lived outdoors, and by extension the civil jury courts.
I now know the British Parliament and Australian politicians knew it was all about my unprecedented Mothers Day 2006 civil jury lawsuit, they were illegally trying to stop.
The British Parliament with the knowledge and complicity of Australian politicians et al illegally failed to disclose in court proceedings there was a prior political agreement between political parties et al to ban any peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London that meant, like the Hague Adoption Convention that contradicts the right to claim political asylum, is and always was legally unenforceable. That is why no politicians, political parties, press, police chiefs, or union leaders (the for example Police Federation and National Union of Journalists claimed an exemption from ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) went to the High Court to get a permanent injunction against ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 including in HQ11X00563 when no-one was ever going to let me anywhere near a witness stand in the High Court, including over 16th January 2012 when there was no stay on HQ11X00563. The politicians and press more generally try and commodify the public and freedom of expression anyway for their own personal financial profit.
It is self evident members of the unelected British House of Lords who choose as adults to change their own identity for their own personal financial reasons that include they don’t support the rule of law or democracy, cannot legally impose identity changing adoption legislation on vulnerable children.
The UN would have also been forced back then to recognise an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation is also legally entitled to choose to register to live in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem, regardless of my race, religion, politics or none, that would also acknowledge the reality of an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation to in our own right choose dual nationality, while it would also restore the right to claim political asylum.
I was then exiled from the UK too which was obviously traumatic because I was once again being isolated from all my own friends and family, because of adoption legislation.
I lived in my own home and nature lovers paradise in the autonomous nuclear free Breton Woods in France from July 2013 until I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019 because of adoption legislation in France too, that forces me to live in perpetual exile, while being excluded in any meaningful way from peacefully participating in politics because I reject adoption legislation.
The fact uranium naturally exists in Australia does not change it can be responsibly managed, without being used for nuclear weapons or nuclear power in Australia, just like it must also be recognized in Australia that adopted people who reject adoption legislation that does not naturally exist provides legal grounds for claiming political asylum in Australia because the country can be adoption free too.
The latest Australian PM and so called Leader of the Opposition et al, who are all the same to me, are legally obliged to stop covering up the political torture and attempted murder of me in the UK because I entirely naturally and legally reject adoption legislation in the evolving journey of Australia peacefully and naturally becoming a genuinely democratic republic that is free from adoption and nuclear weapons or nuclear power.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 