Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: I have legally… officially renounced legally unjustifiable draconian adoption legislation (Supreme Court in Melbourne do not… officially deny I have legally done) that with High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 in UK etc provides legal basis for compensation to live in my own home in Breizh, France, my own family can visit and live in, along with reality most people would agree with equality of opportunity for everyone of legally justifiable International Civil Court incl. choice of civil juries ‘sidestepped’ by Hague Adoption Convention, ECHR, ICJ, ICC & UN (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… home in Breizh, France, my own family can visit and live in.
I have personally always been denied equality of opportunity with regard to peaceful participation in civil society that includes timely access to justice, simply because I was as a small child opportunistically labelled ‘adopted’ by legally unjustifiable draconian adoption legislation that seriously oversteps personal and legal boundaries.
I have legally… officially renounced draconian adoption legislation (the Supreme Court in Melbourne do not… officially deny I have legally done which they would have had to do, for me to need to bring a case saying they are wrong) I have not as someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation committed any known or published civil or criminal offence by… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation. I am not legally obliged to be grateful for being labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation, because I have always been legally entitled to make my own decisions just like any child or adult who is not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation can do and does.
The politicians et al with for example the Hague Adoption Convention, ECHR, ICJ, ICC and UN have ’sidestepped/leapfrogged’ the equality of opportunity of a legally justifiable International Civil Court, including the choice of juries, for everyone, despite the fact that pointedly ignores a ‘minority’ of people from all walks of life, from all around the world who have opportunistically first been labeled ‘adopted’ as vulnerable minors, with that experience then… misappropriated and conflated for use by any adult strangers and in particular politicians for their own ends. The best that can be said is politicians keep trying to sell their version of the dystopian draconian adoption legislation as a utopia of sunlit uplands, because that is easier and can buy them votes, instead of properly funding legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ for all vulnerable minors separated from their own families for any number of reasons that could happen to anyone.
I did manage to force, the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK that also labelled me a ‘serious organised criminal’ as an adult, off the statute books, despite the overly ‘enthusiastic’ use of that by an entire state apparatus.
This was a complete fabrication on Mothers Day 2006 because we only discussed my lawsuit which is why the government could never produce a witness statement from an Inspector Lyons:
The Crown Persecution Service who were the most dreadful bullies too, later omitted the facts politicians would never have enacted ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation if the Magistrates Courts in the UK made and kept accurate and contemporaneous records with audio recordings of proceedings, or cases were heard before a criminal jury in the Crown Court.
The CPS had to remove this libelous ‘hit piece’:
The for example Crown Persecution Service in the UK illegally publicly posted a seriously unprofessional and maliciously libelous ‘hit piece’ about me (that I was only informed about by someone else) that was rather over-egging the pudding even in 2008
as their alleged response to a… formal complaint I properly made, that it turned out involved their ‘Serious Crime Division’ (where the seriously biased and prejudiced CPS failed to mention that two of their own CPS lawyers had very unusually come forward as witnesses for me in a very serious malicious prosecution I won, which was part of an easily identifiable pattern of very serious political persecution)
that the CPS were forced to remove because it was in it’s totality untrue, and a cover-up over Mothers Day 2006 etc.
Suffice to say the likes of Vitol and the CPS did not support our forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books. It was not only completely illogical, but deeply offensive to claim I… automatically became a criminal just because I was in Parliament Square, Central London.
There were a considerable number of politicians openly involved in ‘complex’ unlawful arrests of me:
The politicians (like another former PM, TM who was a Home Secretary at the time) could never explain their ‘smoking email’ below they got Westminster Council to send to me, to a civil jury even if they… had ’84’ years. It is a straightforward matter they were a) trying to… distract from I had for example also ‘won’ HQ11X00563 in January 2011, over Mothers Day 2006 too, and they were b) then using ss 143 etc of the PRSR Act 2011 to claim they could give an… exemption from their legislation to anyone they liked including an undercover operation which is the only possible explanation for 16th January 2012 they knew they could… as usual never explain to a civil jury:
Westminster et al… gambled on the 16th January 2012 and then Rudd et al sent along the ABC who slithered along on the coldest night of the year (I did eventually get frostbite etc etc)
Murdoch had a serious motive, because knew he could never explain this pack of lies about me on 30th January… 2011 to any civil jury that were directly related to the lies told about 16th January 2012:
There is slightly more than a ‘reasonable suspicion’ some corporations do generally pay politicians et al for ‘anti-competition’ legislation, who specifically do and did illegally… leverage draconian adoption legislation.
(I had previously complained when Murdoch, who never supported our forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, sent along his ‘Crime Editor’ from his beloved ‘Sun’ in April 2010 to try and pay me off, to cover up someone from what was at the time called the ‘National Crime Agency’ threatening me etc, while he was actually wired. A gaggle of police had suddenly, out of the darkness, appeared from no-where to claim they were arresting the stranger for “impersonating a police officer” which was puzzling because he was a police officer. The next day the excuse passed along by the ‘Sun’ was “he was just drunk” ‘while on duty’ as a police officer who was ‘seconded’ from Thames Valley)
The politicians often belated use of ‘inquiries’ as a distraction, where they handpick more of their own, and set their own boundaries, would be less likely to happen if there was an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries. The only way politicians and public officials et al can try and reverse the fact they are supposed to serve the public, to instead serve their own personal interests, is in the absence of an International Civil Court that includes the choice of a civil jury. There are however no political, religious or royal leaders who are ‘more important’ than any law abiding private citizen.
I guess the recent FT report below (which rather oddly used to be delivered to us for free in Parliament Square, Central London) is more a ‘salmon’ color ( I said it would look better if it was more pink):
The likes of a Sir Alan Duncan, a former ‘Yes Minister’ for corporations like Vitol who (along with Lord Malloch-Brown who was a fmr Deputy Secretary General of the UN)) Duncan is now openly a full time ‘adviser’ for which he always was, along with his marriage of convenience to a City of London ICE/International exchange and ‘reputation’ manager had a… motive to leverage draconian adoption legislation to stop me living in my own home in Breizh, France for his own political, personal and financial reasons. The existence of draconian adoption legislation is like a magnet to the most unscrupulous politicians.
(Duncan only resigned from politics and returned to overtly working for Vitol which he was really doing all along, when I was stopped from living in my own home in Breizh, France in July 2019) Duncan who personally opposes peaceful freedom of expression from law aiding private citizens, and is also Chairman of Hascol too, only resigned from politics and returned to overtly working for Vitol which he was really doing all along, when I was stopped from living in my own home in Breizh, France in July 2019, after he had already jumped on the bandwagon to leverage the use of draconian adoption legislation against me, and is the reason I have a High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, etc, over Mothers Day 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London. Duncan is find of telling tall tales publicly he has always known could never be repeated before or withstand any legal scrutiny from a civil jury if you look at Parliament Square, Central London.
The ‘central banks’ ?:
I do not personally have the slightest idea what ’commodity traders’ generally really do, but I do specifically know Vitol who are actually based in and work out of London, ’speculated’ on the ‘commodity’ of ‘trading’ with draconian adoption legislation)
Vitol (who operate in most countries incl. Australia with ‘Viva Energy’ whose headquarters are literally next door to where I was illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020) briefly (at least publicly) slithered out of Moscow shortly before the British referendum on the EU (to ‘keep up appearances’):
It’s not an exaggeration to point out that the vast profits Vitol have… previously made would have easily more than covered my flexible pioneering compensation for anyone from any race, religion, politics or none, who had been labelled ‘adopted’.
The politicians et al cannot legally deny compensation including the equality of opportunity of a legally justifiable International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries, which should not be difficult to achieve, because politicians et al do and have variously supported for example the Hague Adoption Convention, ECHR, ICJ, ICC and UN. There is no reason a random civilian panel could not choose any prospective judges for an International Civil Court because independent judges who are essentially supposed to be impartial administrators, safeguarding due process, would respect the fact that most people naturally live within the peace and harmony of the rule of law every single day. It is arguable an increase in superfluous legislation has shifted justice away from juries more generally to judge only courts, with justice further eroded in the UK by Magistrates Courts not making accurate and contemporaneous records using something as basic as audio recordings.
It should not be difficult for law abiding private citizens to have access to the equality of opportunity for everyone of a legally justifiable International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem.
The long standing global miscarriage of justice in my own case would have been far less likely to happen if there had been an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries for everyone.
The use of draconian adoption legislation is legally unjustifiable, but there is a long overdue legally justifiable necessity to help achieve equality of opportunity for everyone with an International Civil Court that includes the choice of civil juries. Most people would agree an International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries, for everyone, is a big deal.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 