Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I have… officially renounced draconian ‘adoption’ legislation, with civil & criminal jury nullification on Mothers Day 2006 that along with my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 & premeditated political torture & attempted murder of me, provides legal basis for universal income & healthcare, incl. free Australian passport in my own identity, so I can live in my own…home in Breizh, France with $1.4 billion dollars compensation, while officially registered as a peace campaigner (28.02.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else, to self determination.
The politicians arbitrarily imposed the… label of ‘adopted’ on me, that I am not, do not, and never was, legally obliged to accept, however anyone looks at it.
My case conclusively proved it is only legally possible for vulnerable children to have… legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ in our own identity, that we… automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood. My own parents… automatically ‘aged out of’ now defunct legislation used against them that resulted in the unseemly haste of my being… labelled as ‘adopted’. I would have either been returned to my own parents as a small child, or have automatically ‘aged out’ of ‘care arrangements’ as adult when I was legally entitled to, like anyone else, make my own decisions anyway, if there had only been the only legally possible… legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ a vulnerable child automatically ‘ages out’ of upon becoming an adult. There are no circumstances that make draconian adoption legislation necessary, so it is unnecessary argue, its… use is lawful. There are not even any accurate and contemporaneous, let alone agreed legal records made or kept about adoption. There should never be anything other than legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ for vulnerable children until adulthood who must always and without exception, have their own completely independent… legal representation.
I have… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation that arbitrarily imposed the label of ‘adopted’ on me in the same way, I officially renounced the ban on peaceful freedom of expression in now repealed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that I proved was…unnecessary, so it’s use was only about causing harm that was unlawful and included publicly… labeling me as a ‘serious organized criminal’ too.
The politicians are never bothered about illegally leaking the… adopted name of a law abiding private citizen, along with other false information, for a ubiquitous ‘trial by news media scrum’ so the political lies never improved with age:
The focus of politicians and the news media scrum’s headlines is typically about themselves.
We were… peace campaigners based in Parliament Square, Central London, regardless of our race, religion, politics or none.
My case also proves draconian adoption legislation does put a person who is labelled as ‘adopted’ at serious risk and in harms way, because an adopted person would illegally be… excluded from compensation over unlawful legislation (like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) because nullification of other legislation including by a civil and criminal jury would also result in nullification of the ‘forced conscription’ by draconian adoption legislation. There is no reason a person labelled as ‘adopted’ would want to be ‘adopted’ when draconian adoption legislation will also result in being… excluded from compensation when other unlawful legislation is used too, because that actually… compounds the harm undeniably caused by draconian adoption legislation.
It is clearly not the case that draconian adoption legislation is the only legislation in the whole world that cold never be nullified, including with a civil or criminal jury, and regardless of changes in governments, republics, monarchies, democracies or empires.
The ‘two veterans’ and the groundhog day over Mothers Day 2006:
It was never legally possible for politicians and the news media scrum to change outside a court, what I managed to say on oath on a witness stand in the High Court on the 21st June 2010 in the UK, where it is clear I had not waived my right to a civil jury. The government knew they were legally obliged to produce my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, and the court recording of the single sentence of my own real ‘Contempt of Court’… ruling in the High Court from December 2008, (the government filmed me mentioning on 25th May 2010) that replaced their own supposed ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case in 2007 about Brian and myself and Westminster Magistrates, along with the CCTV of the subsequent premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me that makes the single sentence of what I presciently said in the High Court in December 2008, all the more significant. The reason politicians unlawfully arrested me before the State Opening on 25th May 2010 was because I was literally holding a ‘bundle’ of their lies (they had given me) that meant the politicians and news media scrum could not possibly publish any further lies, and Johnson could not leg it to the High Court to bring a malicious prosecution in the High Court against me… before we were released, unless I was unlawfully arrested.
The tall tales from Johnson-land where he was illegally trying to ‘join’ me with his Professor 26th March… 2009 Knight:
I was then illegally denied legal representation on 23rd June 2010 in Johnson’s panjandrum (well, I had ‘won’ really, way back on Mothers Day 2006 to be precise, but nevertheless it should always be possible to have a ‘McKenzie Friend’ because everyone is legally entitled to… choose their own legal representation) when the Australian Labour PM Rudd switched to FM before the British, American and Russian governments then did their own ‘big spy swap’ in Vienna on 9th July 2010:
while the undercovers in Parliament Square, Central London just re-grouped on the pavement on 16th July 2010, while Johnson et al plotted ‘round two’ because the best they could do to try and buy time, was separate us from Johnson’s own ‘Democracy Village’ and remit a malicious prosecution against Brian and myself back from the Court of Appeal to the High Court. It is not the case that Parliament Square, Central London was the only place politicians did not illegally use undercovers. It is clearly illegal to use undercovers to try and deny or stop civil or criminal jury nullification of legislation. Brian and myself did not have any choice about being maliciously prosecuted, but the separate ‘news media’ face of the government’s own ‘Democracy Village’ which was quite different from who was actually there, or who it was agreed with Johnson would appear in court, also only identified as British.
The ‘big spy swap’ (that was actually between the UK, United States and Russia) in Vienna, happened to be on the same date of 9th July 2010 (that was the same date we… already had several other 9th July cases from 2006 & 2007 that were… already our civil jury lawsuits ) when the Court of Appeal in London in the UK was forced to agree to separate us from being illegally ‘joined’ with Johnson et al’s own ‘Democracy Village’ etc
The now British PM Johnson knew while Mayor of London, he could not ‘win’ round two of his malicious prosecution from 26th May 2010, so they also then illegally covered up I also won HQ11X00563 and when that really was, which was in January 2011, before the High Court and Court of Appeal could not in April 2011 make me pay any costs (the BBC who were in court were not happy) in Johnson’s malicious prosecution (because I pointed out Johnson was always illegally trying to ‘overtake’ our own lawsuits etc. Johnson had wanted to illegally ‘join’ us with his own ‘Democracy Village’ but had not wanted to… join HQ11X0563 that I won without a jury, but did not waive my right to a jury, or compensation, when Johnson knew he had really lost the three… connected malicious prosecutions in January 2011 (it was much later that others claimed they were all sorts for the ‘news media’ scrum, they never repeated in any court)
This limited admission that was sent to me, was just another reason to not be adopted (it is a fact that people who are labelled ‘adopted’ are raised by intelligence services, I never personally worked for, because I naturally wanted… my own identity and would have never signed any ‘official secrets act’ that could also have been used to stop me having my own identity) which only creates additional unnecessary problems for an adopted person:
I never even signed any documents as either a child or adult giving my… consent to being labelled ‘adopted’ and to the use of draconian adoption legislation. Someone once said, “it must be difficult to try and come to terms with everything that has happened”. The jury nullification of any legislation should not really have anything to do with intelligence services anyway. I am happiest being a mum and peace campaigner myself.
The… politicians and news media scrum did not report this, with a criminal jury, because they knew never had any… evidence… against me since… Mothers Day 2006 !!:
I proved with a criminal jury too, in May 2013, that Johnson et al were only always illegally trying to ‘overtake’ my own lawsuits and jury nullification of legislation. I did not return to the UK in May 2013 while supposedly on bail, because I had… already returned to the UK… before when the crown court had adjourned the case without giving any reasons or having my agreement, while Johnson was cynically at the same time in April 2013 in the High Court still trying to illegally stop my legal right to have a civil jury, which is why and when my boyfriend who accompanied me to the High Court (when I should not have needed to go) was kidnapped when we left and were travelling through the City of London.
When SteveJ was kidnapped on the day of the switch between British PM’s Blair & Brown on 27th June 2007, while he was standing beside me the government said they “had got the wrong one” before I was later grabbed without anything being said to me, along with someone else, in what became another of an unprecedented number of our civil jury lawsuits. The politicians do not like civil or criminal jury nullification of unlawful legislation.
It is of course undeniable that British Johnson (who was still an American citizen at that time) and Australian Rudd were abusing public office to rip me off in for example HQ11X00563 with their $1.4 billion dollar deal between themselves instead.
I don’t personally think much of politicians et al, who are not interested in genuine… equality of… opportunity for all.
The politicians knew they could not change jury nullification of legislation at for example the ECHR in Strasbourg because the court only has the legal authority to remit a case where someone has not waived their right to a civil jury, back to a jury.
The for example EU who don’t have referendums to join the EU, only to leave the EU, should have first been established with a functioning health and welfare system and freedom of movement for law abiding private citizens (ie: more Spinelli than Monet) rather than the political ‘business as usual’ anti-competition trade deals that typically exclude smaller businesses.
I do not personally know of any legal reason why the for example ECHR in Strasbourg (with 47 member countries from inside or outside the EU) has not modernised with the independence of civilian juries too, to restore some balance in legal systems, because governments have their own entourages of lawyers and appoint their own judges to the ECHR. It is not legally possible for politicians to claim law abiding private citizens can only just tick a box every so often in a referendum or election, but can never have or participate in… civilian juries in courts of law. Most people naturally live within the peace and harmony of the rule of law, so jury nullification of legislation should not be viewed with undue hostility by any state which professes to be comfortable with democracy, because it can be a very important check and balance on executive over-reach.
The reality is no politician or head of state is ‘more important’ than any single law abiding private citizen, which is why no court could ever give a ruling that any war is legal. This also means ‘forced conscription’ is unlawful for the same reasons. The only discernible reason Australian politicians publicly claim political asylum is based on a ‘mode of transport’ (which could not possibly be true) while handing vast sums of public money to their mates to imprison people, is because politicians do not more generally make the necessary effort to have a globally workable system.
An unusual ‘opinion’ of an ‘Advocate General’ called Collins for the ECJ on 24th February 2022 (after the British government were told they should no longer have an ‘Advocate General’ at the ECJ) over rights… after the British referendum is misleading for a number of reasons. Politicians were legally obliged to officially recognize adopted people had not had the same rights as people who were not adopted… before there was the British referendum that meant we were legally entitled to have rights restored so they were the same as those who are not adopted…before the EU referendum, including because if it was possible to vote in the referendum it would have been meaningless anyway without having had the same rights as people who are not adopted. It is a disincentive to vote in elections generally anyway, because you know you don’t have the same rights as people who are not adopted, which is not going to be changed by a referendum or election. In a more general sense it is once again impossible to know why British and EU politicians had not firstly put out to public consultation whatever would secondly be their withdrawal agreement … before the actual referendum, because politicians are legally obliged to have proper consultations with the public. The fact that any politicians would want to use the British referendum to deprive some EU citizens of their EU citizenship… without the person’s consent is only… consistent with the absence of due process in draconian adoption legislation in 99 & Hague Adoption Convention countries who routinely change and switch nationalities and citizenships without due process too.
The reality is it was not at all unreasonable for people to expect politicians to have agreed any conditions of EU citizenship long… before their referendum, like for example when they established their EU or the equivalent, because it is quite disrespectful and then some to leave something so central so legally unsettled that did not have to be like that:
It is self evident it is absolutely unlawful for Australian politicians to restrict my freedom of movement by refusing to issue me with a free Australian passport in my own identity, just because I have… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation, that people who are not labelled ‘adopted’ do not have to do. There is clearly no equivalence of lived experience between a person who is labelled ‘adopted’ as a minor and an adult who adopts or even a person who gives up a child for adoption, because the politicians do not restrict their freedom of movement or refuse to give them a passport in their own identity, and so on and so forth. It would be ridiculous for politicians to claim I could not always make my own decisions because of draconian adoption legislation.
The Australian politicians, courts and government departments including for example DFAT and Services Australia are legally obliged to at the very least officially make a record and acknowledge that I have… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation.
I don’t personally have a problem with being officially registered in my own identity and home in Breizh, France, as a ‘foreign’ peace campaigner because there can never be too many peace campaigners.
My pioneering two part compensation which is sensible and reasonable includes:
a) a person of any race, religion, politics or none who has been adopted having the choice to voluntarily and unconditionally receive the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month, tax free that cannot be ‘means tested’ in any way, along with universal free healthcare of our choosing regardless of where we live or choose to live that also serves as a real universal basic income because people who are adopted come from all walks of life from all around the world and cannot be expected to keep ‘starting over’ in any circumstances.
(that would in my own case be paid by the State of Victoria)
b) exemplary and aggravated damages in individual cases that in my own case should be $1.4 billion tax free dollars (again paid by the State of Victoria) because of the corrupt payment between Johnson and Rudd)
(I should be able to collect my compensation from the Supreme Court in Melbourne, in Victoria)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker
Donna Bugat 