Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I legally… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation (along with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation on Mothers Day 2006 etc in Parliament Square, Central London in UK) inside & outside a court of law incl. with jury nullification (I did not waive my legal right to a civil jury) that Supreme Court in Melbourne do not… officially deny was legal for me to do & provides legal basis for compensation incl. exemplary damages so I can live in my own… home in Breizh, France, with free Australian passport in my own identity & help change legal landscape of anomalous ‘Hague Adoption Convention’ with transformational International Civil Court incl. choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem, to review ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable minors automatically ‘age out of’ as adults, along with hearing lawsuits from private citizenry to achieve more… equality of opportunity for everyone (10.02.1962)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination including to live in my own private… home in Breizh, France which I legally occupied.
I was labelled ‘adopted’ as a small child in the State of Victoria, Australia, by draconian adoption legislation, before I was labelled a ‘serious organised criminal’ as an adult in Parliament Square, Central London by a political ban on peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK.
My adopted identity was illegally leaked with false claims to distract from jury nullification of legislation:
I obviously did not… automatically become a criminal because I was in Parliament Square, Central London between 2005 until 2013.
The cynical opportunism and unscrupulousness of politicians in Westminster is evident in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. The politicians would obviously never have tried to spin ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 if an accurate and contemporaneous… audio recording of proceedings were made in the Magistrates Court, or cases were heard before a criminal jury.
The politicians, and news media scrum, along with the monarchy (who having never advocated for law abiding private citizens to have the same rights they claim they can have, rubber stamped the GLA Act 1999 that purported politicians could for example give part of the public space in Parliament Square, Central London to the monarchy, so they were not impartial or unbiased) did not support our forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation off the statute books, including before it was extended throughout the country which it is highly unusual for law abiding private citizens to do.
The government must have been running out of dates in their diary:
The legal reality is politicians et al did know when they illegally published false information on Mothers Day 2006 etc that there was jury nullification of not just ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation but draconian adoption legislation too, because no jury could say I could be treated differently because I was labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation. The politicians, and the likes of Murdoch knew he could never repeat the pack of lies he later published about me in the Sunday Times on 30th January 2011 on oath in any court with a civil jury because I had for example also won HQ11X00563 over Mothers Day 2006 etc too. This was long before Westminster then also tried to distract from the real… legal argument on 16th January 2012 over the fact Westminster purported they could also choose to give… exemptions from ss 143 etc of their PRSR Act 2011 legislation for anyone government agencies liked which could also illegally be used to run undercover operations with the former British PM TM who was ‘Home Secretary at the time claiming on 17th January 2012 there was (what turned out to be an imaginary) ‘injunction’ instead etc.
The politicians in Australia cannot deny they have known about my case for a long time including because politicians maliciously brought so many published cases naming me in the UK, after the former Australian FM Downer first illegally tried to deny I am an Australian citizen. The former Australian Labour PM Rudd covered up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 that escalated to the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me in return for him being given $1.4 billion dollars through Ingeus from the British Tories. The payment Rudd secured from British politicians was obviously contingent on my never receiving compensation. The global miscarriage of justice involving a gaggle of opportunistic and unscrupulous politicians like Rudd would have been less likely to happen if there had been an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries for civilian private citizenry.
It could never be said the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me (where it is impossible to explain how the CCTV came to be transferred into the possession of government lawyers who have never been in any legal position to dictate anything because I was… always actually legally entitled to the original copy that an independent expert would need to verify had not been tampered with) has ever been handed over to me in anything approaching a ‘timely manner’:
(the same government lawyers had… previously already lost a very serious case where the government illegally… destroyed independent video footage to try and hide what was going on that was on the same date but several years earlier)
The politicians in Westminster told Westminster Council ‘to disclose’ this ‘smoking email’ to me, to try and… distract from the fact, the real legal problem the Home Secretary et al had was trying to explain why politicians claimed they could use ss 143 etc of the PRSR Act 2011 to give… exemptions to whoever they liked, that could illegally include using their own undercover agents against me:
It is argued that what politicians and the news media scrum call ‘free speech’ which is often at best ‘hearsay’ is traditionally based on generating false profits by exploiting civilian private citizens outside of any civil jury in any court. The ‘first hand’ peaceful freedom of expression is by comparison a fundamental foundation of an evidence based rule of law inside or outside any court, that is not supposed to be based on physical or financial ability.
It wasn’t like the Australian Judge Downing was stopped from living in his own… home in July 2019:
The Supreme Court in Melbourne, Australia have not… officially denied I legally… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation inside or outside any court. It similarly could not be illegal to say inside or outside a court of law, a historical problem is there has not been the balance of an International Civil Court for civilian citizenry.
I did not as someone labeled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation commit any known or published civil or criminal offence by officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation, inside or outside a court of law, so the 48 unlawful arrests etc of me in Parliament Square, Central London in the UK between 2005 and 2013, and then when I did not voluntarily leave my own home in Breizh, France and return to Melbourne, Australia in July 2019, before I was unlawfully arrested twice, inside and outside a court in Melbourne on 21st December 2021 because I have legally and officially renounced draconian adoption legislation, inside and outside a court of law, do constitute an easily identifiable… pattern of… political persecution. I am not even voluntarily in the country (that I was sent away from as a teenager because I was not ‘grateful’ for being labelled ‘adopted’ that meant I was also treated differently from the adult strangers who posed as my parents etc ) and most certainly did not voluntarily go to any court that originally did the dirty deed of labeling me ‘adopted’ using draconian adoption legislation. The at most personal opinions and political language of handpicked government experts in a government inquiry about imposing a… label of ‘adopted’ in for example Australia and the UK (the JCHR have belatedly cobbled together an inquiry about ‘forced adoptions’ in the UK too) is a legally meaningless complete… distraction. The undeniable transformational change of an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries to help achieve equality of opportunity for everyone is by comparison a big deal.
It’s not as if every far more vulnerable minor labeled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation in the global free for all between countries, have… automatically all had legal representation:
A transformational International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries for private citizenry has the potential to set a progressive and constructive example everyone can value.
The ECHR which includes governments who are inside and outside the EU knew they could only refer any of my own cases back to a civil jury because I have never waived my legal right to a civil jury. An International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries is what was missing from the legally anomalous anachronism of the global free for all of the ‘Hague Adoption Convention’ signed by around 101 governments and deposited at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. The issue of arbitrary and authoritarian draconian adoption legislation is not just a problem in a single country or or several countries.
The same Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) in the British Parliament in the Palaces of Westminster who completely ignored those of us who had been most affected by ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, to illegally continue to try and ‘circumvent’ our forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, belatedly trying to spin the the political language of ‘forced adoption’ too (where the secrecy imposed on someone labelled… ‘adopted’ by politicians draconian adoption legislation, is different from the fact politicians and government agencies have… always had access to all the information):
I specifically remember while another former Australian Labour PM Gillard was grandstanding for public consumption, staff from the Australian embassy in London telling me the real truth that “politicians don’t care” about the legal problems they have created which is legally neither here nor there:
The relatively recent political language of ‘forced adoptions’ that emerged when politicians were falling all over each other illegally trying to stop my civil juries, in the UK, is intended to misleadingly portray there could be some adoptions that were either a mistake or illegal, in the knowledge that all draconian adoption legislation is completely unnecessary in any and… all circumstances.
The British and Australian politicians did know who the adult strangers who posed as my parents etc were (that I have slowly made peace with myself over because it is more constructive to try and make progressive change more generally):
I never personally signed any ‘official secrets act’ myself because there was a ‘reasonable belief’ politicians could always have illegally used that as a further means to try and and illegally stop my legally officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation. It is known the fact draconian adoption legislation has so much secrecy imposed by governments, means it has been used by government agencies like the intelligence services, along with senior judges and heads of state in a number of countries.
It is simply not legally true that someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation is not legally entitled to make our own decisions and instead needs the ‘permission’ of someone else including politicians, police and courts, when someone who is not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation does not need to, as either a child or adult. I am not legally obliged to.. justify to the.. satisfaction of anyone else, including politicians, police and courts, my making my own decisions that someone who is not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation does not have to do. It is obviously absolutely unlawful for politicians to continue to illegally try and restrict my freedom of movement by refusing to give me a free Australian passport in my own identity, just because I have legally and officially renounced draconian adoption legislation, which it is now clear politicians illegally planned to do if I was still in my own… home in New Zealand, the UK or Breizh, France too.
My own parents automatically ‘aged out of’ now defunct legislation used against them that led to the unseemly haste of my being labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation that it is claimed by contrast I could never automatically age out of. That led to my also being raised separately from my own little sister who had the same parents who ‘suddenly’ died, not so long after I found her in Australia, and not so long before she was coming to live with me in the UK. There is a considerable difference between someone who is labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation, compared to parents who are not labelled ‘adopted’ or adult strangers who pose as parents etc who are not labelled ‘adopted’. The label of ‘adopted’ only serves to provide politicians with an excuse to not properly fund ‘care arrangements’ more generally for all vulnerable minors. The various ‘authorities’ in the State of Victoria never even bothered to keep accurate or contemporaneous, let alone agreed records of adoption, in particular of any prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm caused by draconian adoption legislation.
It is only legally possible to have legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable minors automatically ‘age out of’ as adults regardless of whether or not any family re-unification is or was at any time possible. This also helps avoid politicians et al giving adult strangers unrealistic expectations involving identities, nationalities and citizenships of vulnerable minors. The legal reality is any additional nationalities and citizenships accrued by someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation (which given numerous other legal connections in many other relationships throughout life is not always entirely clear) could only legally be accrued in the right of the person who had ‘care arrangements’ of any kind imposed on them as a minor, to choose to use or not use, like someone who was not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation. The reason everyone labelled ‘adopted’ is not ever automatically given any legal representation is because politicians et al are legally obliged to… fully inform someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation of our legal right to officially renounce draconian adoption legislation. It is not legally possible to claim someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation cannot make the same decisions someone not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation as either a child or adult, does. There are no ‘authorities’ who can legally just impose a label of ‘adopted’ on anyone else. In fact, everyone also has the legal right of their own choice of legal assistance too, that can include a ‘McKenzie Friend’.
I personally support the equality of opportunity for all of the peace and harmony of the rule of law and democracy along with civil juries, instead of the soap opera of monarchy and a news media scrum et al who have all too often primarily promoted the corruption of cronyism.
It is clear there should have always been the balance of an International Civil Court for civilians, given there is for example an International Criminal Court available for governments and their entourage of lawyers. There has never been anything stopping for example the monarchy or the house of lords officially renouncing the institutions of monarchy and the house of lords and standing in public democratic elections instead themselves. There was never anything stopping the British Commonwealth or EU putting the legal rights of law abiding civilians first, instead of trade deals to make a few people wealthy.
It is illegal to ban political parties because they include someone labelled ‘adopted’ who has officially renounced draconian adoption legislation, when for example state governors or a governor general or a monarchy could all by comparison officially renounce their institutions of state governors, a governor general or monarchy in Australia and stand for public democratic election instead themselves. There is nothing stopping a former judge of an UN ‘Internal’ Tribunal who have failed to recognize the problems… civilian private citizens face, from supporting an International Civil Court for civilian private citizens. The Judiciary can become just an extension of politicians in the absence of a proper balance with something as transformational as an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries. Most people reasonably expect a good judge with a civil jury, to be an effective administrator, who does not try and use their position to exclude evidence to steer a political narrative, who also respects the ability of civilians to understand the peace and harmony of the rule of law, most people do after entirely naturally live within every single day.
It is undeniable the transformational change there would be in the legal landscape with an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem, to review ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable minors automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood, and hear lawsuits from private citizenry can do the most to help achieve… equality of opportunity for everyone.
My flexible pioneering compensation that truly is a universal basic income with healthcare means:
a) a person of any race, religion, politics or none who has been labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation 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)
(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 