Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: The County Court & Supreme Court in Melbourne cannot deny my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK over Mothers Day 2006 is universal & valid in Australia because it is reasonable (incl. someone labelled ‘adopted’ by others cannot legally be forced to return to originating state) to have legally binding jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation (refer ‘landmark’ case against me in UK about ’Contempt of Court’ legislation in 2007) because it is self evident it is illegal to enact legislation that stops someone from being released from that legislation unless they ‘agree’ under duress (which is not a valid agreement) to not sue the state/s for any… harm caused by ‘others’ arbitrarily imposing the legislation (24.05.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
It is undeniable that I have been caused prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm by being labelled ‘adopted’ by others, always against my will. because draconian adoption legislation illegally claims someone who is labelled ‘adopted’ by others cannot be released from draconian adoption legislation unless the person ‘agrees’ under duress (which is not a legal agreement) to not sue the state/s.
My High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 2008 is the legal ‘alternative’ way out of draconian adoption legislation for someone who refuses to be labelled ‘adopted’ by others and subject to such illegal draconian adoption legislation.
The only reason ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was on the face of it, publicly forced off the statute books first, was because although the legislation was similar in many ways to draconian adoption legislation, it did not include being forced under duress to ‘agree’ to not sue the state over the legislation, before being ‘released’ from the use of the legislation. In fact both were subject to… jury nullification. The draconian adoption legislation is so ‘controversial’ it was only ever going to be nullified by someone labelled ‘adopted’ by others, and was like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 subject to legally binding High Court jury nullification.
The ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case in the High Court against me over 26th March 2007 (one year after Mothers Day 2006) was… ultimately really trying to illegally stop a legally binding High Court… jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation (and jury nullification of Contempt of Court legislation, because courts are legally obliged to keep proper records to avoid ‘misunderstandings’ that include someone having legal support of our own choosing as a right, and not a request, see note)
It is self evident that politicians know they cannot enact legislation that claims people can be bound by that legislation unless they agree to not sue the state/s for any harm caused by such arbitrary use of the legislation.
The now Senator McGrath has previous form for… illegally covering up the identity of a male assailant who violently punched me in the head, while McGrath was working for Johnson, and he also knew about my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 that would ‘technically’ be against him too, so it is entirely possible, that it was Senator McGrath, who illegally threatened me on New Years Eve 2019 in Australia.
The now Senator McGrath (a ‘career’ politician) was fully cognizant of the facts in Parliament Square, Central London while he was working with Johnson, and could not deny he knows full well, exactly who I am, OR that he illegally covered up my being violently punched in the head, because I was being maliciously targeted by… named politicians that Johnson who he was working for, was trying to distance himself from. It would be ridiculous for McGrath to claim he cared about Londoners or indeed anyone else while he was working with Johnson. It is but one of too many examples of why someone cannot be labelled ‘adopted’ by others like… politicians, because I clearly could not and should not need the ‘permission’ of any politician or court to then be free from draconian adoption legislation that is used in all it’s various forms in all states in Australia.
I am clearly entitled to compensation including a free Australian passport in my own identity and financial compensation so that I can live a safe and sustainable life in my own home in Breizh, France, and support an International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
N.B: The fact I have consistently complained about politicians opposing my having legal support of my choosing can only be construed as a formal complaint, and not a request. The ‘landmark’ alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ case in the High Court about 26th March 2007 (one year after Mothers Day 2006) hides that I asked (which I was advised by a lawyer to do) to have legal support and when that was refused by the Judge I said I was making a formal complaint, at which point the Judge left the court without addressing the fact of my formal complaint about having legal support, before I was then falsely accused of an alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ etc etc. The politicians obviously did not then also want a legally binding ruling… in the High Court (the supposed ‘jurisdiction’ spin) that courts are legally obliged to make and keep proper records of proceedings, or for me to have legal support of my choosing, so there is no ’misunderstanding’ about who said what, when and why. I am legally entitled to have legal support of my choosing, that can witness any additional ’statutory declarations’ I am asked to make, because someone does not need to be legally qualified or work for a state agency, to effectively witness a witness statement. It is legally sufficient to state a statement you make is true.
Donna Bugat 