Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: Re: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 that led to premeditated political torture & attempted murder of me because I made… legal history with civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006 means I am legally entitled to a free Australian passport in my own identity so I can live in my own home in Breizh, France, along with $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation (22.06.2022)
My… home in Breizh, France, on 27th June 2019:
I am not legally obliged to and do not need to ask the ‘permission’ of any politician or court for the…. legal rights that I already have to officially use my own identity and live free from draconian adoption legislation.
The politicians in the State of Victoria are showing a reckless disregard and criminal negligence towards my physical health, solely to try and maintain unlawful draconian adoption legislation.
The only reason politicians don’t want me to have an Australian passport in my own identity, without my first seeking the permission of courts to use my own identity, is because without the ‘permission’…. lie there is no draconian adoption legislation.
I obviously have Australian citizenship wherever I live, regardless of an Australian passport so the politicians are acting unlawfully. (The true legal reality is people who have without our consent, been labelled adopted as vulnerable children, have also acquired any additional nationalities and citizenships…. in our own right that we can choose to use or not use, as we wish and indeed do and would with other relationships we have as adults, where people also acquire additional nationalities and citizenships we do not lose when we marry or divorce etc)
It was clearly unconscionable and unlawful for politicians to lie behind my back !!!! with their false claim from 20th November 2020, that I “own property in Australia” (that I only discovered by chance they were falsely claiming on 20th May 2022) to try and explain away why I am illegally stopped by… politicians from having a) emergency or b) social housing in Australia while being illegally stopped by the same politicians from living in my own home in Breizh, France, which is obviously causing me serious ongoing physical harm that compounds multiple auto-immune and related illnesses. The fact politicians use draconian adoption legislation to literally lie about so much about someone labelled adopted highlights why my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 is so… important because my own High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order means that where there is any dispute about information then it must be subject to determination by a civil jury.
The only reason British and Australian politicians omit any mention of My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 that led to the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me, from their ‘news’ media versions of Brian and myself in Parliament Square, Central London (ie: BBC, Sky, The Times, The Sun, ABC, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, London Evening Standard etc) is because it is undeniable that Court Order highlighted the civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation, in for example both the UK and Australia.
This was a legally and factually incorrect account by the BBC of Mothers Day 2006:
The tall tales from Murdoch-land et al because of course the… monarchy could never have had any legal authority to prosecute Brian and myself which I also proved Johnson could not do either in HQ11X00563:
What else could my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 be about but the civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation ? (I was illegally imprisoned in 2008 and then 2011 and was released as if on ‘licence’ while it is known I was not actually on or subject to ‘licence’ because on both occasions I went straight to the High Court who was involved and as records prove, I was clearly not on ‘licence’ precisely… because I had been illegally imprisoned)
Of course there would never have been draconian adoption legislation if there was an International Civil Court with the choice of juries.
The reason I was illegally denied legal representation in the High Court in the UK, on the 23rd June 2010 (after I began legally blowing the whistle on the 21st June 2010) was because British and Australian politicians were all ‘professionally embarrassed’.
The British and Australian politicians were arguing among… themselves about who was legally responsible for my having legal representation when Rudd was forced to resign. The Australian government could not pretend they were not involved because of draconian adoption legislation. Rudd and Gillard et al illegally… hid reports written by Australian public officials in the UK.
It is only legally possible to have legally reviewable care arrangements based on child protection, that vulnerable children automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood, so all the highly unusual adoption ‘court orders’ and draconian adoption legislation that are far beyond any supposed ‘family’ law are solely based on political and commercial child trafficking that is obviously legally unjustifiable in any and all circumstances.
All that happened in my own case was that it was not only ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation that was subject to civil jury nullification on Mothers Day 2006, but draconian adoption legislation too.
Lord Neuberger trying to spin another makeover:
It was the British news media who published that I was forced to mention in passing to Lord Neuberger in April 2011 that he was corrupt because it is self evident from the actual court records, he obviously had no legal authority to deny legal representation to either Brian or myself which is the only subject matter he was trying to ‘sidestep’ while waffling on about something else.
The BBC are intentionally once again, factually incorrect in April 2011 because I was legally asking for an adjournment so Brian could have…. legal representation which had been illegally denied to myself in June 2010, and then Brian in April 2011, on the day before the hearing while Brian was getting medical treatment in Germany !!:
Lord Neuberger… intentionally ‘sidesteps’ he was legally obliged to give an adjournment so Brian could have legal representation which was not within the ambit of Lord Neuberger to either refuse or sidestep:
There was a cover-up over legal representation for both Brian and myself, involving the…. Legal Services Commission.
My personal view is the Judiciary are civil servants who are unlike civil juries, not independent and should therefore be appointed by a civil jury empanelled for that specific purpose. The Law Lords from the House of Lords in the UK are very clearly not independent even with their Supreme Court makeover that also sought to then use Parliament Square as their address too.
The remarkable synchronicity of Murdochland and the Victorian Bar:
The British and Australian politicians all dance around my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 because it did make legal history in the civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation. It is not the case that all people labelled adopted in Australia need to or want to return to Australia. It is the case that each and every person labelled adopted as a vulnerable child by draconian adoption legislation is legally entitled to make their own decisions based on the individual facts and circumstances of their own case, because of course it was never legal to effectively use draconian adoption legislation as a collective punishment against a cohort of vulnerable children. The fact a very few politicians subsequently claimed they were adopted and that they support draconian adoption legislation being used on other vulnerable children does not make it legal.
It is actually a…. civil jury that can provide the often needed independence from political interference that can include corruption:
The former Labour PM Rudd is a bully boy who only got the $1.4 billion pay-off from the British Tories over Mothers Day 2006.
The idea that the opportunist British PM Johnson is the ’saviour’ of anyone by using draconian adoption legislation is truly repugnant.
It is politicians who have to adapt to the reality that draconian legislation has legally been nullified which it must have always been foreseeable would happen.
It is not the case that all adopted people either want to or can be forced to return to the ‘country of origin’ for all sorts of reasons. It is only draconian adoption legislation that has been standing in the way of my living my own life in Breizh, France. It’s not legal to stop me living in my own home in Breizh, France, because the problem is draconian adoption legislation. My own modest home is fascinating because it snuggles into the hillside and is essentially part of a mini micro-climate with an abundance of wildlife including the most amazing birdsong.
It is obviously better for people to have the opportunity to genuinely try and help vulnerable children separated from their own families that can happen for any number of reasons to anyone, instead of trying to like politicians, spin themselves as all sorts of ‘saviours’ who are in reality trafficking children with all too often commercial ‘adoptions’. No reasonable or rational responsible adult would expect anyone to ask someone else for ‘permission’ to have our own legal rights !!
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 