Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc that nullifies abuse of process of draconian adoption legislation & provides legal basis for universal income & healthcare, means I am legally entitled to free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity & $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation (16.11.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The reality is adoption legislation is an abuse of process, because no adoption legislation can be legally used to force an adopted person to lie about our own identity, so an adopted person cannot be legally obliged by adoption legislation, to pay money to or need the approval of a judge to officially use our own identity.
There are so many endless legal problems for an adopted person caused by adoption legislation that include the identity of an adopted person can in part or whole be erased, including any existing nationalities and citizenships, and by state authorities who have no authority to issue passports in a federal political system. The perversity of adoption legislation means an adopted person according to adoption legislation needs to pay money to and have the approval of a judge in the originating state or country to officially use our own identity in another state or country, along with also needing to pay money to and have the approval of a judge in the originating state or country to apply for a passport in a different country, including in our own identity, or to even reclaim our nationalities and citizenships that existed prior to our adoption. In practice an adopted person would need to pay money to and have the approval of an originating and receiving state to claim political asylum on the grounds of adoption, making political asylum impossible for an adopted person, so it is impossible for an adopted person to comply with adoption legislation because it just imposes an entirely arbitrary and unreasonable burden on an adopted person.
It is absolutely unlawful for politicians to use adoption legislation to try and force an adopted person to lie about our own identity. The fact the revolving doors of politicians and press choose to lie about much, for their own personal and financial profit, does not mean they can use adoption legislation to try and force a law abiding private citizen who is adopted to lie about our own identity.
The legal reality is an adopted person must be legally entitled to bring a legal challenge against adoption… legislation regardless of whether or not the adopted person is living in the originating state or country. Therefore the County Court in Melbourne must be legally bound by my Universal High Court Habeas Corpus Court order from 16th April 2008 etc. I should never have been forced to return to Melbourne, Australia from my own home in Breizh in France, to bring a legal challenge before a jury in the County Court in Melbourne.
The fact adoption legislation was identifiably nullified on Mothers Day 2006 when I proved in Parliament Square, Central London, adopted people are legally entitled to a jury means that politicians remain legally obliged to agree the terms of that nullification, with law abiding private citizens who are adopted.
The reality is politicians are legally obliged to agree that an adopted person has the choice of what original and acquired nationalities and citizenships to use.
A person who was adopted is also obviously legally entitled to receive a universal income and healthcare wherever we choose to live, no questions asked.
*
The Lord Blair is not sitting legally in the House of Lords because he illegally leaked my adopted name on Mothers Day 2006 with false information to illegally try and prevent a jury nullification of adoption legislation.
The legal reality is Lord Blair was legally obliged to resign on Mothers Day 2006 which would also have meant he could never have been elevated to the House of Lords.
There’s no political or legal difference between the former Australian Liberal FM Downer & former Labour PM & FM Rudd:
It was completely unacceptable for Lord Blair to lie about me on Mothers Day 2006, and to then continue lying, including with Sir Ken Jones from ACPO who became DAC in Victoria where he was promised Australian citizenship by the Federal Rudd government, that was contingent on my never returning to Australia.
The politicians only purpose of illegally using the also legally unjustifiable ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation etc against me in the UK, was to illegally use the state apparatus to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass me, including through unlawful arrests and false imprisonments etc.
There was obviously no legal or political difference between either Livingstone or Johnson as Mayors of London, because the intended purpose of the London Mayoralty and City Hall in the GLA Act of 1999 was to fast track growing privatisation.
Lynton Crosby was paid money in the Mayoral election of 2008, to illegally cover up my Universal High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc.
I was unlawfully arrested etc, at a State Opening in 2010 in the UK, so the BBC et al could illegally edit and publish out of context, my specifically speaking about a Court Order, so Johnson et al then legged it to the High Court to as fast as they could, try and get a gag order against me, to try and illegally stop me ever giving evidence in the High Court or having legal representation (ie: 21st & 23rd June 2010) etc etc.
It is the multinational poverty profiteers like the former Labour Australian Labour PM Rudd and Ingeus with their $1.4 billion dollar profits from the British Tories they only made from… continuing adoption legislation, that are legally unjustifiable.
A Mr Weimar who is the current Victorian Covid Commander and along with the Premier, responsible for my being illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne, in August 2020, only left the UK because of accounting ‘discrepancies’ at the similarly legally unjustifiable Serco, who is like the former Australian PM and FM, Rudd, and former FM Downer’s & Carr, also involved in lawsuits, like HQ11X00563 while I was in Parliament Square, Central London.
The legally unjustifiable poverty profiteers like Ingeus and Serco who are engaged in corrupt business practices on behalf of politicians anyway, did and will take money to cover up the abuse of process of adoption legislation that Rudd was obviously involved in as a politician too.
It is a matter of fact that legally unjustifiable poverty profiteers like Rudd et al’s Ingeus and Serco have also illegally been profiting from the continuation of adoption legislation.
It is legally possible to have universal basic income and healthcare with no questions asked for people who have been adopted wherever we live, instead of legally unjustifiable profits for the multinational poverty profiteer likes of Ingeus et al, whose staff can easily be guaranteed employment by a government agency instead. A universal income and healthcare for a person who was adopted means we do not need to move around or keep moving around because of what politicians and public officials have done, including with adoption legislation which has only ever been about politicians et al.
I was incredulous when the British PM Johnson had one of his former wives called Wheeler pose as a human rights lawyer in 2012 to publicly try and defend legislation specifically made against me, including by her husband, in Lord Rothermere et al’s London Evening Standard. I said “if she was a real human rights lawyer she wouldn’t want people arrested and dragged before the courts because they disagreed with politicians” (like her now former husband when he was Mayor of London) In reality, all Johnson and Wheeler were really bothered about was his keeping his £250,000 per annum salary from the Daily Telegraph while he was also Mayor of London, and which he only continued to get as long as he continued to cause me harm.
The only business the former Labour Australian PM Rudd was protecting, while PM and FM was that of the multinational poverty profiteers Ingeus et al.
The legal reality is corruption is corruption, and should not be confused with either politics or capitalism.
*
It is not for an adopted person to have to wait around until it might happen to suit politicians in the UN or Hague Adoption Convention to right the historical wrong of draconian adoption… legislation.
I should never have been stopped from living in my own home in the Breton Woods in Breizh, France, because of adoption legislation.
I am legally entitled to a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat along with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_____________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: Re: Premier Andrews knew he was legally obliged to “put up” himself for legal scrutiny by a jury in court over his own actions involving continuing abuse of process of adoption legislation against me (the only purpose of which is to illegally try and avoid legal scrutiny from a jury & nullification of adoption legislation) -or- he was legally obliged to “shut up” & State of Victoria pays for a free Australian diplomatic passport for me in my own identity of Donna Bugat, along with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation (that would at the very least be peaceful & legal outcome of jury court case anyway) (17.11.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
There is no political or legal difference between the Victorian Labour State Premier Andrews and the British Tory PM Johnson.
The Premier Andrews… already knew it is an an abuse of process to as a starting point illegally seek to force a law abiding private citizen who is adopted to lie in court, about my own identity, until and unless I first agree to pay money to and have the approval of a judge to “officially” use my own identity, to in addition vote or stand in politics, that along with the Premier only doing that because he illegally wants to avoid jury scrutiny of his own actions and nullification of adoption legislation in a court, that while also being undemocratic and incompatible with peace and harmony of the rule of law, also contradicts the right to habeas corpus, basic disclosure, DNA, provenance, and fair competition etc.
The politicians know it is illegal for them to publicly grandstand anywhere, when they know that what they are personally illegally trying to do is at the very least avoid a civil jury trial in a court over their own actions.
It is clearly completely illegal for an adopted person to need to pay money to and have the approval of a judge to stand in politics with our own identity !!
Seriously.
The seriously corrupt Rudd & Co at Ingeus who are still stealing the taxpayer dime, are not volunteering to appear in court before a jury, so I presume Premier Andrews is representing them:
It is obviously far harder and more onerous for me, compared to the Premier to go through such serious court proceedings because I am an adopted person adversely affected by the serious and continuing abuse of process of completely unnecessary adoption legislation.
The unreasonable burden imposed on an adopted person by the abuse of process of adoption legislation unraveled in Parliament Square, Central London, when undemocratic politicians from all the political administrations sought to illegally use another legislative abuse of process of called ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 against law abiding private citizens like myself.
It was unreasonable that according to and because of the abuse of process of adoption legislation in (for example) both Australia and the UK, I would first need to pay money to and have the approval of a judge in the State of Victoria to “officially” use my own identity in for example a court in the UK being illegally used by politicians from all the political administrations there, to maliciously try and prosecute law abiding private citizens like myself, with what we proved was another or additional legislative abuse of process called ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
In fact we undeniably proved the only purpose of the use of the abuse of process of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 by the revolving doors of politicians, public officials and the press who routinely elevate themselves to the anomalous House of Lords, was to illegally try and through the use of bullying, threats, harassment, intimidation and overwhelming state violence including through the use of unlawful arrests and false imprisonment of entirely law abiding private citizens, to illegally try and avoid legal scrutiny of their own actions, at the very least, by a High Court civil jury that in the case of a law abiding private citizen like myself who also happens to be adopted, would nullify adoption legislation too.
I would also perversely, according to how the abuse of process of adoption legislation works in practice, have needed to pay money to and have the approval of a judge in the State of Victoria to even apply for a French passport, including in my own identity, while legally living in my own home in France, because in either circumstance I would have needed to disclose the fact of my adoption, which in turn would also have affected how any application for a different or additional passport was treated, including because of the fact adoption legislation also exists in France too. That would all be regardless of the British referendum on the EU too, at the same time, and all the political ‘bureaucracy’ of whatever any politicians may claim that may mean, before a global pandemic.
It would have been the same in New Zealand and so on because adoption legislation which is so draconian obviously does not keep up with or adhere to the social “norms” of the day. There are all sorts of cut and paste iterations of adoption legislation that all seek to first and foremost improperly influence the ability of an adopted person to “officially” use our own identity.
The only reason the unreasonable burden of the abuse of process of adoption legislation seems to continue is because suits politicians. It doesn’t make legal or common sense to in part or whole erase a vulnerable child’s own identity including forever, just so that what begins with the premise of an adult stranger being able to “legally” force a vulnerable child to call them a parent instead of carer, continues into the adult life of an adopted person, including in so many countries, while everyone but an adopted person is encourage to acknowledge and share their own family history regardless of what it may be, across the generations. The barbarity of adoption legislation that is first and foremost about the secrets and lies of politicians, decrees that a government “could” arbitrarily imprison any family member who has their own identity for no other reason than the government finding out the family member who does have their own identity, have sought contact or have contacted the adopted family member, without first having the approval of a government. Yet an adopted person can have our own identity arbitrarily changed in so many ways, that is merely rubber stamped by a court (politicians and judges adopt vulnerable children too) so we can in practice, be sent anywhere in the world, for any reason. The abuse of process of adoption legislation is not just ‘hostage diplomacy’ by one entire state apparatus, but often multiple state apparatus.
The politicians choose to have second jobs, but an adopted person is forced to have a second identity of whatever suits politicians, that is legally, morally and politically problematic.
It is undeniable I was already illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne, Australia in August 2020 because there was no legal scrutiny including by a jury in a properly constituted court that it is my choice to have, after I had already been forced to return to Australia from my own home in Breizh France in July 2019 because of adoption legislation.
I missed the part where politicians have any agreement from those like myself already illegally detained in hotel quarantine, about compensation.
It’s not even like it is possible to get proper medical treatment for multiple auto immune and related illnesses, in Australia.
The true legal reality… can only be the legal certainty that I am, as an adopted person legally entitled to make my own decisions about “officially” using my own identity, instead of my adopted identity, as if adoption legislation no longer existed. So I should be able to choose to use any nationalities and citizenships that existed prior to my adoption (that are routinely erased or not acknowledged by adoption legislation) and could have accrued additional nationalities and citizenships, and or those nationalities and citizenships that have accrued or could have accrued through my adoption.
So it is unsurprising that I am reasonably claiming at the very least, a) a free Australian diplomatic passport so that I don’t need to wait until it may happen to suit politicians and their hague Adoption Convention with all the cut and paste versions of adoption legislation to acknowledge the multiplicity of unnecessary legal problems a law abiding private citizen who is adopted can and does in practice face, that a jury in a court would recognise, b) along with $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation for me that politicians like the former Australian Labour MP, FM & two time PM Rudd and British Tory, two time MP, Mayor of London and PM Johnson very clearly ripped me off over while abusing their publicly funded political office for their own personal financial profit and political advantage.
The reality is the only reason Rudd and Johnson are not in prison, is because I am a law-abiding private citizen who happens to be… adopted.
The idea that I would as an adopted person, and through the abuse of process of adoption legislation from a literally… criminal political class, need the approval of the likes of the seriously corrupt Rudd or Johnson for anything is totally repugnant. Corruption is corruption, that should not be ‘confused’ with democracy or capitalism.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My nullification of adoption legislation in State of Victoria who pay for a free Australian diplomatic passport for me in my own identity, along with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation means I “could” stand as an Independent in Federal politics & not claim a salary or expenses, while peacefully campaigning to modernize with a Republic, that has one national government & legal system with universal income & healthcare & no state borders (19.11.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
My nullification of adoption legislation in State of Victoria, who pay for a free Australian diplomatic passport for me in my own identity, along with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation means I “could” stand as an Independent in Federal politics, and not claim a salary or expenses, while peacefully campaigning to modernize with a Republic, that has one national government and legal system with universal income and healthcare, and no state borders.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: “Call me Dave” Sharma was senior civil servant who was legal adviser at DFAT to fmr Australian FM Downer & later Labour PM’s Office when he covered up CCTV etc before he became a politician himself (so British-led Browder spin about ‘Magnitsky Act’ could only have been about trying to stop… nullification of adoption legislation) (22.11.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression, and legal right like anyone else to self determination, that also includes being able to claim political asylum in my own identity.
The politicians really have been trying to force an adopted person to live in politicians own state of denial, because “Call me Dave” Sharma does know adoption legislation should have formally been nullified on Mothers Day 2006 when he knew politicians and the top cop Lord Blair illegally leaked my adopted name with false information using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 before Lord Blair was elevated to the House of Lords.
It was specifically the top cop in New Scotland Yard who lied and did not immediately resign:
It is very clearly seriously… illegal for politicians to enact adoption legislation that in practise claims an adopted person needs to pay money to and have the approval of a judge !! to officially use our own identity, including to stand in politics !! including because that is very specifically forcing an adopted person to just go along with any old adoption legislation, regardless of what it demands, if we want to stand in politics !!
The adoption legislation that claims I need to pay money to and have the approval of a judge in the original state of a country to officially use my own identity and live in my own home in another country called France, that has different adoption legislation, does not in any way, actually address the…. legal quagmire already created by adoption legislation that changes nationalities and citizenships too.
The reality is politicians should be focused on peacefully unraveling the… legal quagmire of… their adoption legislation.
****
It was the fact that none of us were a) trained lawyers, and we were going to nullify ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK and b) the circumstances meant that I was legally supposed to have a civil jury that would not only have nullified ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 on Mothers Day 2006, but would inevitably also have nullified adoption legislation too, because the fact of how I came to be in the UK would come out. That was a highly unusual scenario politicians were completely unprepared for. So I was accordingly treated truly appallingly because I happen to be adopted which is not supposed to be considered a crime either.
****
Politicians do take advantage of the fact most people obviously do not generally have the practical experience of doing a repeal or nullification of legislation themselves, that was overwhelming when it was ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK.
“Call me Dave” Sharma was a civil servant who was the legal adviser to the former Australian FM Downer when the Australian politicians were trying to say in 2006, that I am not an Australian citizen (that continued the political abuse of my being forced to leave Australia as a teenager, so the man called Tudor Harvey Barnett, who posed as my godfather which is not very funny, could become Director General of ASIO to try and stop the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services being caught up in the adoption scandal) Sharma was then part of the Australian Labour PM’s Office when everyone illegally refused to hand over to me the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me (that I understandably reasonably believe was what was intended in the earlier CCTV) The British politicians were falling all over each other to illegally stop me giving evidence in court, and in particular before at the very least a High Court civil jury.
- Sharma covered up this albeit edited by the government CCTV that I understandably reasonably believe was when the politicians originally intended to torture and attempt to murder me:
2. before the CCTV of the actual torture and attempted murder of me that somehow came to illegally be in the possession of politicians who have illegally refused to hand it over:
There was a lot going on globally that saw Westminster centre stage while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, that included Westminster paying and arming mercenaries they called protesters including in Libya, at the very same time politicians knew they had lost HQ11X00563 against me in the UK that also involved Australian politicians, and was while they were making the corrupt payment of $1.4 billion dollars to the former Australian Labour PM & FM Rudd using Ingeus et al, was also while they were plotting new legislation against me (ie: 16th January 2012) !!
So what is really the British-led spin with Browder about the Magintsky Act when I was in Parliament Square, Central London, could only have been about trying to distract from and stop the… nullification of adoption legislation.
(I am not aware the Russian government would support the nullification of adoption legislation, and I personally refused to have anything to do with the Russian State media when they contacted me on November 17th 2016, after the British referendum on the EU, and then the election in the United States. I… already knew the Russian government did not support Brian who had died in Germany, or myself when we were in Parliament Square, Central London, when the Russian government was openly and undeniably on very good terms with Westminster, and in particular with the now British PM Johnson et al)
ShAmnesty International that is based in the UK, and Human Rights Watch, and Murdoch for goodness sakes, are notorious for being highly selective about human rights:
The Netherlands et al have subsequently suspended international adoption:
The same lawyer called Catrin Evans, who represented the British government against Brian and myself in the ‘landmark’ and seriously bogus Contempt of Court case against us in 2007 which very clearly ‘sidestepped’ a High Court ruling that the lower courts should be legally obliged to make and keep accurate and contemporaneous records, that they don’t, then represented Browder years later in a ‘highly unusual’ libel case in 2013, supposedly about the ‘Magintsky Act’.
The British government trying to cover up Mothers Day 26th March 2006, on 26th March 2007 etc:
The Browder libel case years later supposedly about the Maginstky Act was after I was exiled from the UK:
So the reality is “Call me Dave” Sharma is an example of someone who has been a senior civil servant illegally hiding corrupt information about adoptions, for politicians, before becoming a politician himself !! that just continues to prove why the abuse of process of adoption simply cannot continue. I don’t personally care what adoption legislation Sharma supports or enacts because I know he doesn’t care about all adopted people and has profited from illegally hiding CCTV. I don’t personally genuinely feel there is any need to pay money to and have the approval of a judge to officially use my own identity, because of adoption legislation invented and supported by the likes of Sharma !!
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
N.B: The photo of me with Brian was taken outside Holloway Prison on 15th April 2008, shortly after the prison governor had handed over the High Court Habeas Corpus paperwork she ‘forgot’ to give me (that I nevertheless knew about) before the prison governor who spoke to me in person, improperly asked me to sign a written ‘waiver’ for her before she would release me, that I declined to do.
Donna Bugat 