Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 & premeditated political torture & attempted murder of me while politicians & courts had always illegally refused to hand over copy of my adoption ‘court order’ to me !! because they knew it was invalid, nullified draconian adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006, so it was unlawful to arrest me inside & outside County Court in Melbourne on 21st December 2021, because I am legally entitled to a free Australian passport in my own identity and $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation to live in my own… home in Breizh, France & support an International Civil Court with choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem (12.05.2022)
FAO Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police
Re: Legal & Prosecutions Specialist Branch/Prosecutions Division | Legal Services Department | Victoria Police
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The fact adversarial politicians, and public officials including police and courts arrogantly and aggressively treat someone who entirely naturally opposes being labelled ‘adopted’ with complete and utter disrespect, only brings their own far from legal system into very serious disrepute.
My adopted name was obviously illegally leaked along with false information on Mothers Day 2006, because I was not even so much as interviewed, including under caution (see Blair, 25th March 2007) because the two Blair’s would have had to immediately resign (only… my lawsuit was discussed):
There is only one person who is really affected by ‘adoption’ in any adoption ’story’ and that is the person labelled ‘adopted’ as a vulnerable child. The ‘lived experience’ of someone labelled adopted as a vulnerable child is completely different in any and every way from that of our own parents and any siblings who are not labelled ‘adopted’ or the adults strangers who pose as our parents who are not labelled ‘adopted’ either. There is no ’shared’ experience on any level because everyone else involved in any adoption ‘story’ does not have the onerous and highly unusual state interference of a lifelong ‘court order’ arbitrarily imposed on them that labels them as ‘adopted’ that has all sorts of far reaching real world… consequences.
A government has never labelled someone ‘adopted’ because they care about the ‘best interests of a child’ or because of ‘child protection’ because governments themselves have always legislated to arbitrarily and illegally withhold whatever medical information they like, from people labelled ‘adopted’.
What politicians call ‘adoption’ is really a global multi-billion dollar… ‘industry’ that is unlawful in any and all circumstances, because it is common-sense, someone cannot be denied the ability to make the same choices that children and adults who are not labelled ‘adopted’ do, simply by being labelled ‘adopted’. The global multi-billion dollar adoption… industry uses the cult of celebrity to promote what politicians call ‘adoption’ because the cult of celebrity will say whatever they are told to say, because they rely on free publicity, just like the revolving doors of politics and the news media scrum. .
No reasonable and rational responsible adult could possibly believe it was legally possible for politicians and courts to legally impose the very serious interference of a lifelong ‘court order’ on someone who had committed no civil or criminal wrong simply by bing labelled ‘adopted’. The facts are politicians did not legislate for someone labelled ‘adopted’ to even be given a copy of the ‘court order’ affecting us, which courts have just gone along with !!!! The politicians and courts intended to illegally try and stop someone labelled ‘adopted’ from being able to challenge the ‘court order’ not only in the state of origin but in any other country. The first time I ever saw even just a copy of what is purported to be a ‘court order’ in my own case (Case 352, May 1963) was when I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019. This is because politicians and courts have been illegally trying to stop the nullification of draconian adoption legislation.
The politicians illegally denied me the opportunity to challenge the adoption ‘court order’ while I was (for example) living in my own home in Breizh, France, because I had never been given even a copy of the adoption ‘court order’. When I was forced to return to Melbourne, Australia in July 2019 (which was the first time I saw what politicians et al purport to be an adoption ‘court order’ which I was very shocked to see) I then also discovered the County Court in Melbourne, had the ‘court orders’ on their system in Melbourne, Australia, but the court staff give all sorts of manipulative excuses about it only being accessible by special court staff, but they never made an appointment with the so called specialist court staff. Any person who has had a ‘court order’ made against them by a court is supposed to be able to get a copy of that ‘court order’ directly from the court, immediately. So the only possible true identifiable reason the County Court has been including more generally illegally refusing to hand over even copies of the adoption ‘court orders’ upon request is because politicians and courts, did not want someone labelled ‘adopted’ to put them before another court in for example another country. The courts have always just unquestioningly gone along with whatever draconian adoption legislation politicians generate. The published court cases in for example the UK, like ‘Somerset’ that purport to be about some aspect or another about ‘adoption’ all follow the same signature tune/ pattern of glossing over the starting point is the politicians do not have any legal authority to enact draconian adoption legislation, and the courts do not have any legal authority to make any adoption ‘court orders’ with some manipulative emotional blackmail of one kind or another. The DOJ in Melbourne, Australia, are just completely inconsistent and in breach of their legal obligations regarding basic disclosure with regard to any part of adoption ‘court orders’ about someone labelled ‘adopted’ because the DOJ only do whatever happens to suit the political whims of politicians on any given day.
It is ‘highly unusual’ that someone can be illegally subjected to what can be quite extraordinary ‘court orders’ that are really an unlawful state interference, simply by being labelled ‘adopted’. It is the state who actually claim to have the legal authority to transfer the rights of someone labelled ‘adopted’ to themselves through the use of what are really invalid ’court orders’ because legislation falsely claims we need ‘permission’ from courts to have the same rights as those not labelled adopted as a child or adult do, returned to us, even as adults.
It was the seriously messianic Murdoch who was quoting from Ecclessiaticus 44.1 at a journalist ‘church’ in London when according to the Financial Times he said “Let us now praise famous men and our fathers who begat us” which conveniently overlooks the spoilt silver spoon simply ’persuaded’ money lenders he could buy political influence and profit from sporting rorts because he was ‘too big to fail’. The only reason Murdoch employed the sycophantic likes of a Lord Finkelstein and Mr Gove as journalists at the Times who then became elected and unelected politicians who… maliciously targeted Brian and myself, both in the press (ie: 18th December 2007) and courts, was so they could all specifically oppose equality of… opportunity and promote for example the… inequality of monarchy. The only identifiable reason the Murdoch mouthpiece, who poses as a British politician and journalist called Gove (who publicly claims he is adopted which may or may not be true given the propensity of politicians and the news media scrum to be ‘economical’ with the truth if it does not translate into profits for them personally) wanted me arrested was so he and Murdoch could lie and legislate whatever they wanted without being sued for malicious libel etc.
The false profits of ‘Fleet Street” & all that:
The only real reason a Murdoch mouthpiece like Gove could possibly have been mouthing off in the Times on 18th December 2007 was because i had just ‘won’ the ‘decisive’ legal ‘victory’ at Southwark Crown Court on 13th December 2007 over Mothers Day 2006, when it so happened I was 44 years old. The politicians and press liked to talk big about their ummm… war on… peace campaigners.
The fact Murdoch employs sycophants as journalists and elected or unelected politicians in for example the UK or Australia who publicly claim to be adopted does not provide legal grounds for draconian adoption legislation, just because the news media scrum like Murdoch may say so. Those politicians like Gove can as adults go to courts and pay to try and have whatever ‘court order’ they want imposed on just… themselves !! instead. Murdoch has proved to be anything but impartial in the global multi billion dollar adoption… industry.
* The manipulative Murdoch mouthpiece Gove who is a paid journalist who also like Johnson, poses as a politician too, could never have explained to any civil jury falsely publicly claiming on for example…. 18th December 2007, in the Times that we “hid behind legislation” because it is clear the complete opposite is and was true, because it was Gove hiding behind both ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (I forced off the statute books) and draconian adoption legislation*
It is of course a legal mystery why our peace campaign in Parliament Square, Central London should have attracted the attention of the Chair/s of the Joint Intelligence Committee (Mottram & Allen) who in turn illegally ’leaked’ to… Murdoch while bypassing… basic disclosure in our legal cases in courts.
The Sunday Times 24th June 2007 (when it later transpired Livingstone et al were also bypassing basic disclosure with emails to the top cop):
Murdoch’s The Times always knew their version of the ‘highly unusual’ alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ case about Brian and myself they published was about the fact politicians (who happened to owe favours to Murdoch) refused to let particularly lower courts make or keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of so called ‘proceedings’ in courts. It is self evident, the only way it is possible to churn political cases through supposed courts is by not keeping an accurate and contemporaneous record of proceedings in the courts, while the news media scrum publish any old distraction, outside the courts.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008:
The plain English version of the Murdoch mumbo jumbo he published below is the British High Court was obviously trying to avoid making a legally binding ruling that lower courts are legally obliged to keep accurate and contemporaneous records of proceedings in their courts which would help make it much harder for politicians to launder their political legislation through lower courts:
I don’t personally believe it is legally possible for governments who make legislation to take private ciizens who peacefully publicly criticize them, to court, can themselves legally avoid such legislation being considered by at the very least a civil jury who can nullify that legislation where it is found to be purely political.
I was not so much as interviewed or cautioned on Mothers Day 26th March 2006, because it was only… my lawsuit that was discussed:
When Murdoch’s Times then spun a version of the ‘highly unusual’ and supposedly further ‘landmark’ case about Brian and myself and the monarchy and mayoralty (Johnson was certainly ‘possessed’) this published ‘version’ was a complete…. distraction:
The side serving of that scandal (albeit it was a significant one) originally revolved around politicians and the monarchy essentially trying to create a ‘straw man’ from a London Mayoralty to try and hide… politicians illegally passing public land on Parliament Square ‘green’ in Central London off to the… monarchy (who in turn failed to declare such an obvious conflict of interest and then some in signing off on such legislation like the GLA Act 1999 that was then obviously… compounded by ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) to illegally try and ban law abiding private civilians peaceful freedom of expression.
The monarchy clearly found themselves ‘professionally embarrassed’ -and- Johnson wanted to hide what he had done to me with the help of quite an entourage of Australian politicians and ‘special advisers’ etc etc. The Australian politicians never cared about me because I am not grateful about being labelled ‘adopted’ and never will be.
The self evident obvious fact really was, it is… illegal for the… monarchy to try and prosecute or sue… civilians !! which would of course result in a… counter-lawsuit. That explains why Johnson (who was at most the monarch’s… gardener, while also boss of the top cop and employed by the Telegraph) et al publicly refused to join their bogus case ‘reported’ above by the Times, with HQ11X00563 I then won in January 2011 which was… before their royal spin of all sorts with Johnson was eventually belatedly ‘remitted’ in April 2011 etc purely to try and ‘keep up appearances’. I was actually the one who mentioned the monarchy in the High Court in the UK on 21st June 2010 before I was illegally denied legal representation on 23rd June 2010 which is (one of the reasons) why the Court of Appeal went through the motions of ‘remitting’ the case against Brian and myself who were obviously never trespassing or occupying anything, back.
(It is undeniable the only identifiable purpose of the not at all Australian Constitution is solely about the monarchy trying to keep their foot in the door, in Australia, rather than having any interest whatsoever in the rights of law abiding private Australian citizens, because it is clearly misleading to claim a referendum is necessary for the monarchy to be peacefully replaced by a republic. If the monarchy had basic good manners and really opposed inequality, there is nothing stopping the monarchy officially renouncing the… institution of monarchy themselves, and standing for election in politics instead, in the UK)
In the UK, Murdoch could only lie by 30th January 2011 (he would never dare repeat before any civil jury what he maliciously published on 30th January 2011)
It was of course seriously illegal to be maliciously prosecuted by Johnson whose own primary personal interest was to cover up he orchestrated the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me to cover up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006. It is ‘strange but true’ that the only reason Johnson was able to become Mayor of London and then PM was to cover up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 and the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me that Johnson knew he did not have any … legal immunity over.
It is seriously illegal for Australian politicians to have what is only a ‘political policy’ of covering up the pre-mediated torture and attempted murder of an Australian citizen.
It is a matter of public record I did force the political ban on law abiding private citizens peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, despite the opposition to peaceful freedom of expression from law abiding civilians from all the politicians and the monarchy.
The government had progressed from Brian saying “15 police for our Babs” which resulted in my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 to “at least 15 vans” of police on 16th January 2012:
The British government resort to lying on 17th January 2012 in the ensuing stand off in the run up to the… London Mayoral elections on May 3rd 2012 by the same Livingstone (Labour) Johnson (Tory) and Paddick (Lib Dem et al) from 2008, because they all have a financial interest in covering up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 etc:
**In legal terms, and on a personal level, the bigger legal truth was I nullified draconian adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006 in the UK** which is why I have a High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 before the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me when Johnson and Starmer refused to hand over the CCV after the government had already been found to have illegally destroyed independent video footage from the same date several years earlier, that resulted in the former Australian Labour PM Rudd being given the $1.4 billion dollar contract for Ingeus.
The British politicians with the help of their Australian counterparts did incredibly legislate ss 143 of the PRSR Act 2011 to try and ‘construe’ the human body !! as a criminal ‘structure’ in Parliament Square, Central London:
In fact, the government who (once again had not even interviewed or cautioned me, (because how could they possibly say my human body !! was a criminal ‘structure’ in Parliament Square, Central London) lost their jury case at Southwark Crown Court in May 2013:
The British government (well let’s be honest it was the entire Parliament by then) really could not rationally explain to any jury why they would maliciously prosecute a private citizen in a criminal court, for no other reason than being in Parliament Square, Central London where politicians did actually legislate ss 143 of the PRSR Act 2011, to try and ‘construe’ the human body !! as a criminal “structure”.
The fact the global multi billion dollar adoption… industry is completely unscrupulous, means completely unscrupulous politicians like Blair, Schroder, Johnson and Starmer will personally and financially profit from that in all sorts of ways.
It is clearly unlawful for politicians, police and courts in the State of Victoria to have me unlawfully arrested in Melbourne on 21st December 2021 because they do not want to fulfil their legal obligation to recognise the legal reality I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation.
I should have been able to do that from my own… home in Breizh, France and… already have a free new Australian passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat. It is clearly seriously illegal for politicians to refuse to issue me a free Australian passport in my own identity (I didn’t ‘lose’ the other passport/s with the adopted identity, and I don’t want any more phoney ‘birth certificates’ from politicians who now want to make people labelled adopted ‘apply’ for yet another type of what politicians call ‘birth certificates’ with what politicians call two ‘mothers’ and two ‘fathers’ and two sets of ‘parents’ which is their own political language they cannot legally impose on anyone else that at best is basic disclosure that no-one is legally obliged to wrap up to suit any politics including on more phoney ‘birth certificates’)
I personally support the equality of… opportunity of the peace and harmony of the rule of law that includes the choice of civil juries and jury nullification of unlawful legislation, instead of the news media scrum who promote the inequality of monarchy.
Most people would support an International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries and jury nullification of unlawful legislation that could also legally review ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable minors automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 