Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: My Supreme Court Default Judgement & Habeas Corpus Court Order e-filed on 3rd June 2022 in Melbourne, means my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 confirms legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006, so I am legally entitled to free Australian passport in my own identity so I can live in my own home in Breizh, France with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation & support an International Civil Court with choice of juries that could be based in Jerusalem (03.06.2022)
Donna Bugat (Plaintiff)
-v-
- State of Victoria (Defendant 1)
- Victorian Premier Andrews (Defendant 2)
- Mr Robin Scott MP for Preston (Defendant 3)
- DHHS (Defendant 4)
- Adoption Information Service, Department of Justice (Defendant 5)
e-filed in the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 3rd June 2022 (Common Law Division Personal Injury)
The fact is it is served by email:
My Supreme Court Default Judgement & Habeas Corpus Court Order in Melbourne, Australia
N.B There is a fee exemption in the Supreme Court for the inextricably linked adoption and habeas corpus cases.
I confirm the following facts and statement are true and correct.
1.
I was born on 10th February 1962 in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia, and my name is Donna Bugat.
The fact draconian adoption legislation is being illegally used to try and stop me living in my own home in Breizh, France, and make me permanently homeless in Australia means this order is urgent.
Yesterday, I telephoned the offices of the Victoria Premier and the MP Mr Scott so they know, and I visited the DHHS too.
The politicians in the State of Victoria who did not care about the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me in the UK, do not now suddenly care about my having specialist medical treatment or compensation, including while living in my own home in Breizh, France in what has been a longstanding miscarriage of justice.
It is shameful that politicians without any lawful reason, try and use draconian adoption legislation to illegally try and impose such an adversarial and onerous legal system (the use of which is of itself abusive) on a person labelled ‘adopted’.
The politicians and public officials in the State of Victoria who lied about my housing situation in Australia on 17th January 2020 & from 20th November 2020 onwards did so with the intention of causing me permanent physical harm and preventing me from having specialist medical treatment in my own home in Breizh, France, because they have known since Mothers Day 2006 in the UK that they have not had any recognised defence in law to legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation. The politicians and public officials have breached their duty of care and the public trust placed in them, while I am suffering serious pain and finding it difficult to manage every day tasks while being homeless.
The politicians are punishing me without law, because they know they have had no recognised defence in law to legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation since Mothers Day 2006 in the UK.
This has always been completely untrue, as was everything that flowed from that too:
2.
My own identity is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
I say no to being labelled adopted by others and no to draconian adoption legislation because I am an equal of any other. There is no politician or court who can force me to be labelled adopted or subject to draconian adoption legislation that is wholly political. It is completely unacceptable for politicians and courts to try and use draconian adoption legislation to punish someone labelled adopted with onerous adversarial legal proceedings that are nothing more than a malicious political facade. It has never been and is never the case that “only adoption will do”.
It has always been the case that what are at most the personal opinions of politicians and public officials including courts about what they call ‘adoption’ are legally irrelevant. In fact someone labelled ‘adopted’ by others is not even legally obliged to accept the ‘description’ it is ‘adoption’ is correct, because there are often more legally applicable terms such as child abduction and human trafficking.
3.
My Supreme Court Default Judgement with a Habeas Corpus Court Order on 3rd June 2022 in Melbourne, Australia, means my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK confirms legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation. I have always been legally entitled to say no to being labelled adopted and subject to draconian adoption legislation anywhere.
The politicians in the State of Victoria and the UK have only been illegally delaying financial compensation to try and stop my having specialist medical treatment in my own home in Breizh, France. I was illegally stopped from having specialist medical treatment in the UK after the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me. The legal records show Brian Haw was then similarly denied specialist medical treatment in the UK after the now British PM Johnson, while a paid journalist for the Telegraph and Mayor of London etc, commissioned a medical report from a Harley Street doctor who turned out to be a quack who Johnson could not produce to give evidence in court, because the Harley Street specialist failed to diagnose Brian had cancer, and so Brian had to belatedly go overseas to try and get medical treatment. The politicians in the State of Victoria similarly forced me to return to Australia in July 2019 because they did not want me to have specialist medical treatment, including in my own home in Breizh, France, including because they are legally liable to pay for specialist medical treatment that it would clearly be best for me to have in my own home that I own in Breizh, France.
The State of Victoria knows and has benefited from the former Australian Labour PM’s Rudd & Gillard illegally hiding reports from Australian public officials in the UK about the mistreatment of me, because politicians in the UK did not act without their knowledge and agreement.
4.
The Adoption Information Service illegally hid that politicians refused to provide me with a copy of my adoption court order while I was living overseas becuse they did not want it challenged in courts overseas. It does not however, change the fact I have legally said no to being labelled adopted and no to draconian adoption legislation. The Adoption Information Service illegally refuse to provide to me by email a compete set of the records they claim to have so there is no dispute about who claims to have what and when. Their refusal apart from being deliberately obstructive and adversarial has no legal basis because they are legally obliged to copy with legal proceedings by e-service anyway !! The Adoption Information Service consists of nothing more than narrow minded, manipulative and disrespectful victim blaming staff who do not want to accept I have the freedom to simply say no to being labelled adopted and no to being subject to draconian adoption legislation (I do not work for politicians or the public officials in the AIS) and that their at best personal opinion about that is legally irrelevant.
It is entirely legal for me to just say no to draconian adoption legislation, and it is for staff at the AIS to admit and respect that.
The narrow minded, spiteful, vindictive and downright dishonest behaviour of staff at the AIS reflects the fact that despite cheap political words from politicians from time to time about adoption… nothing has really changed.
I sincerely doubt there would many lawyers who would advise a client to agree to be labelled ‘adopted’ and subject to draconian adoption legislation because the whole political concept is based on illegally trying to permanently transfer the autonomous rights of a private individual to politicians and courts. This is why there is such an arrogant, disrespectful and dismissive attitude towards someone labelled ‘adopted’ who public officials prefer to pretend doesn’t exist unless the person labelled ‘adopted’ is just going along with whatever politicians want.
There is of course a wider prevailing attitude that politicians, public officials, and courts are personally uncomfortable with law abiding private citizens, challenging unlawful legislation with civil juries, because it is not the case that politicians can just legislate whatever they like. A just state with responsible leadership should be comfortable with legally binding civil jury nullifications of unlawful legislation.
5.
The facts are the politicians in the State of Victoria while publicly pretending they were having yet another inquiry into adoption, between 2019 – 2021 were at the same time, actually illegally and behind my back lying about my housing situation, so in my own case, the politicians were just using the public appearance of an inquiry to try and hide what they were illegally doing to me, behind the scenes.
The politicians and public officials in the State of Victoria cannot and do not deny they made false claims about my housing including in a letter dated 17th January 2020 that resulted in my being illegally detained in hotel quarantine in August 2020, that when I then made a formal complaint over bing illegally detained in hotel quarantine because I was being illegally stopped from living in my own home in Breizh, France, then resulted in politicians and public officials making the false claim from 20th November 2020 onwards (that I was only told about by chance by Launch Housing in Collingwood on 20th May 2022) that I “own property in Australia”. The political lies by politicians and public officials undeniably led to my being unlawfully arrested inside and outside the County Court in Melbourne on 21st December 2021 because politicians and public officials knew they could not repeat their political lies about my housing, including before a civil jury that I have never waived my right to. The length of time that politicians have lied about my housing situation has clearly had a seriously adverse impact on my health, while politicians have illegally used that time to try and stop my having access to proper specialist medical treatment.
6.
The fact that politicians and public officials lied about my housing situation for so long means they are fully aware of the legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation, because there is no other explanation for their lies.
The politicians and public officials have been reckless about my health, while also trying to keep me homeless, and make me have to live on the streets in Melbourne.
It is obviously illegal to use draconian adoption legislation to try and make someone labelled ‘adopted’ homeless !!
The actions of the politicians and public officials are purely malicious, vindictive and spiteful because they just want to punish me without law because their draconian adoption legislation is null and void and has had it’s political day.
The DHHS child protection have no choice but to admit that adoption has nothing to do with child protection, not least since I am not a child.
7.
The reason politicians and public officials in the State of Victoria were lying about my housing situation was because they knew there was the legally binding civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006 in the UK that means they were still legally liable to provide me with a free Australian passport in my own identity, so I could live in my own home with the financial compensation they owe me.
It is self evident it is undeniable the political lies about my housing have also been intended to illegally stop my having specialist medical treatment including specifically in my own home in Breizh, France.
The political lies in Victoria, Australia about my housing situation have always been about trying to avoid my having proper specialist medical treatment and financial compensation.
8.
Any court costs are payable by the State of Victoria who are also liable for $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation they have been given every opportunity to challenge in mediation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 