Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc nullifies “shady” & “offshore” practices of adoption legislation that have no established & agreed legal jurisdiction & make tax evasion look squeaky clean, means I remain legally entitled to free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity & $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation (26.11.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination, and to claim political asylum.
I was sent away from Australia as a teenager because there is no agreed legal… jurisdiction for adoption legislation etc, which is when I first lived in the UK.
The politicians only ever treat other politicians with any respect, while illegally using adoption legislation against a law abiding private citizen who is adopted, to for example try and stop my standing in politics. The political lie (in for example the State of Victoria) is that an adopted person needs to pay money to and have the approval of a judge to officially use our own identity. This is legally speaking, exactly the same as forcing an adopted person to approve of any and all of politicians adoption legislation, regardless of the physical and emotional harm it causes. I could not personally in all good conscience or indeed honestly do that, with regard to either myself, or any other adopted people.
The connected legal issues of adoption, and ss 44 of the British imposed Australian Constitution supposedly about dual nationality in politics, are obviously another huge legal quagmire.
When I was living in New Zealand, I was approached by a lawyer who lived in the same area as me, so our paths crossed in various social circles, who said I should ask him if I needed any legal advice. It obviously would have been useful to have had the benefit of legal advice to for example claim a New Zealand passport in my own, rather than adopted identity. Shortly thereafter however I was again approached by the lawyer who looked very shocked when he told me he was going to be publicly named in a political scandal, that afternoon. That political scandal turned out to be the Wine-box tax Inquiry in New Zealand which purported to be about tax legislation in New Zealand and other countries like the Cook Islands. It was claimed in court proceedings that the lawyer was the whistle-blower.
It’s fair to say the “permutations” of the “shady” and many “offshore” practices in the global… human trade of adoption, through the use of always changing cut and paste versions of adoption legislation that have no agreed legal jurisdiction, make the use of tax evasion/ or “tax avoidance” legislation look squeaky clean by comparison.
It often seems perverse when governments point the authoritarian and totalitarian fingers at each other for political point scoring, while still promoting the same cut and paste versions of adoption legislation copied by the likes of Hitler with Lebensborn, before the Netherlands ‘acquired’ adopted children from Pinochet’s Chile, while of course no-one cared what Franco was doing in Europe itself either before or after World War Two, and so on and so forth.
My Universal High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 highlights that politicians will illegally imprison an adopted person to illegally try and continue using adoption legislation for solely political purposes. It is a matter of fact the Tories phoney ‘Undercover Inquiry’ in the UK illegally provides free legal representation for the likes of the former Mayor of London Livingstone, who, along with all political sides at City Hall and the Palaces of Westminster illegally hid the identity of the “unknown” male they refused to identify, including during the London Mayoralty elections in 2008 when Livingstone relied on the Tories, like the former Minister for Vitol, Sir Alan Duncan, and the now British PM Johnson himself. The only reason the likes of Livingstone lied about being opposed to war, was to try and stop peaceful freedom of expression of law abiding private citizens, including in Parliament Square, Central London, where he did the opposite of opposing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
The “received wisdom” of “political theory” was an adopted person could not in any circumstances, have a civil jury.
The legal truth that was therefore being hidden over Mothers Day 2006 etc was that it transpired that an adopted person can legally be entitled to at the very least a) a civil jury while b) the government have “no recognized defence in law” to put before any jury.
That was before the British led-Magnitsky spin purportedly between the United States and Russia, once again, about taxation legislation, rather than adoption legislation, when I was in Parliament Square, Central London.
The subsequent claim by the ECHR that… ‘prospective adopters’ from… America could claim financial compensation from the Russian government over a government ban on inter country adoption is a red herring of all sorts, because it is an adopted person who can genuinely claim compensation, including through at the very least a jury trial because even adoption legislation is of itself… regardless of race, religion or nationality, completely unnecessary. The legal reality is adoption legislation cannot legally be enforced against an… adopted person, by an adopter -or- a government. The most the ECHR could have done in my own case is refer the case back to at the very least a civil jury trial. The Netherlands (for example) have more recently “suspended” inter country adoption based on the pretext of the… history of inter-country adoption. The truth is many governments have historically rubber stamped anything without inquiring, where an adopted child might really end up or be sent to, or the fact nationalities and citizenships are arbitrarily changed.
The “S19” adoption legislation “application” in UK about Romania:
The British government have cynically recently put forward a number of adoption cases from the High Court in the UK that (putting the hearsay of any facts to one side that could just as easily be referring to any head of state, supreme court judge or the intelligence services as “prospective adopters”) where the cases result in at most what purports to be a “highly unusual” form of “obiter” only in actuality serve to highlight politicians know a) there is no agreed legal jurisdiction for cases related to adoption legislation (because how could there be, because adoption legislation is of itself entirely unnecessary anyway) and b) seek to try and re-define what might constitute an adopted person being “detained” which they cannot define because a detention is supposed to be subject to at the very least a civil jury.
Romanian, and linked Hungarian cases in the UK from January 2021 (Neutral Citation Number [2021] EWHC 91 (Fam) (citing a case from 3rd March 2016 too):
The legal quagmire of adoption legislation in the UK, means the British government incredibly portrayed that “if” it could be problematic notifying another government (in one case Hungary) about the adoption of a person with Hungarian citizenship, the British courts could then go further in another case (involving Romania) so that a British court could a) then “stay” a welfare report from a guardian and b) not provide legal representation to the adopted person (ever) on the… pretext of not wanting to notify another government of an existing citizenship, so the court could then on the pretext a person would at some point be adopted, claim the court did not need to ever include or notify the adopted the person in any legal proceedings about the adopted person !! including related to the fact their citizenship was arbitrarily changed !! The British case about Romania is a red herring really, because it seeks to circumvent the legal reality the adopted person who is affected is legally entitled to use our own identity, without needing to pay money to or have the approval of any court.
There are so many possible “permutations” arising from adoption legislation that it is not really possible to say there are “highly unusual” cases of adoption, including because it is the wholly arbitrary nature of draconian adoption legislation that is of itself completely unnecessary, that makes what courts may only recently call “highly unusual” cases inevitable, that have actually been happening for a long time.
Of course, the revolving doors of the political and news media classes are always inventing new “buzzwords” etc they would never use or repeat in any court, to try and distract from… continuing inequality.
It is straightforward, legal, and common-sense, that adopted people do not need to pay money to and have the approval of any court to officially use our own identity, because adoption legislation is of itself completely unnecessary. This does not stop people who are adopted and want to continue using their adopted identity, such as “step parents” who adopt “step-children” paying money to and having the approval of a court to continue using their adopted identity, instead, because it is not possible to impose that unnecessary burden on… all adopted people.
The likes of the British House of Lords “Good Law Project” along with the likes of ShAmnesty, and Granta in Australia (which is a spin off including Starmer’s Doughty et al posing as human rights lawyers that airbrushes out Starmer being a ‘human rights adviser’ for ACPO before becoming the DPP maliciously prosecuting Brian and myself etc etc including using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to become the so called Leader of the Opposition in the UK) are trying to like governments… undermine publicly funded legal representation for law abiding private citizens, while solely promoting the “alternative” of public “donations” for whatever legal cases they claim to speak… “on behalf” of and deem “important”. If they were real human rights lawyers they would be supporting all law abiding private citizens legal entitlement to publicly funded legal representation to speak in a public space of court on the witness stand, in the first person.
The State of Victoria are legally obliged to pay for me to have a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity, because that is fair and equitable compensation for the unreasonable burden they have arbitrarily imposed on me through adoption legislation, that has made it impossible for me to in the past freely apply for other passports or political asylum, because of adoption legislation. This would not stop me exchanging a free diplomatic passport for a different passport in another country at a later date, but is in addition to the $1.4 billion tax free dollars financial compensation. The County Court obviously does not have any legal grounds to dispute the out of court settlement the State Premier has in practice, forced on me, because the State Premier et al do not dispute anything.
The State Premier would obviously not treat me with such disrespect if I was another politician.
It would take many years to properly redress the harms… already caused by adoption legislation.
This also serves to notify that I am through no fault of my own, unable to participate in the appointment with St Vincent’s Hospital specialist Rheumatology department on Monday 29th November 2021 (including freely providing all the necessary information) because the politicians are clearly illegally… gaming the health system against me, by illegally stopping me getting proper healthcare more generally, that would also include my being able to live in my… own home in Breizh, France too.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 