Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 nullifies adoption legislation & means I do not need to pay money to or have the approval of any court, including in State of Victoria to “officially” use my own identity anywhere, so I am legally entitled to free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity and $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation (28.11.2021)
I was born in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia, and am an Italian Australian and dual national who has lived in the UK, New Zealand, and in the autonomous Breton Woods in Breizh, France (where my own home is) and I am the proud mum of two beautiful adult sons who live in the UK and New Zealand.
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 well established that the ‘first person’ consistent account of a law abiding private citizen who also happens to be adopted takes precedence in a public space, including in a court with at the very least a civil jury with regard to draconian adoption legislation, over grandstanding by a revolving doors of politics and news media.
The primary focus of adoption legislation has always been enforcing mostly male dominated state control of civilian reproduction. The legal reality that states, countries and adopters can only be carers, means a state, country or adopter could not possibly derive any legitimate or permanent legal rights over an adopted person from adoption legislation. The array of adoption legislation does not and cannot legally be used to take precedence over the legal rights of a person, just because we happen to be adopted. The use of adoption legislation is an arbitrary and draconian ‘over-reach’ of state power, that is not legally justifiable in any circumstances. There’s not many people including people who are adopted, who ‘voluntarily’ choose to have their… own family lives permanently ‘disrupted’ or destroyed by any state, in either peace-time, or during wars or pandemics.
It is only legally possible to have the reasonable and proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children who are separated from their own families, which could happen to anyone for any number of reasons. There is nothing stopping politicians conferring any additional nationalities or citizenships on a person in care in their own right for that person to use as they wish, for as long as the person chooses, if that helps legitimate and legally reviewable care arrangements, until adulthood. It is not however, legally possible for a state, to in part or whole, erase the existing identity, including nationalities and citizenships of a person, using adoption and related legislation.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc that traverses the legal jurisdictions of the British Commonwealth & European Union, and Hague Adoption Convention legally nullifies adoption legislation & means I do not need to pay money to or have the approval of any court, including in the State of Victoria to “officially” use my own identity anywhere.
The politicians like Blair & Johnson et al with their “limping” adoption legislation…. knew (including before their political referendum in 2016) because they very publicly maliciously prosecuted me in their trial by news media in the UK, because I am adopted (while they hid behind the now repealed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005)
The British Parliament et al know (the “policy department C” first visited London before their workshop and at the same time the Judiciary tried to spin their “limping adoption” story) it is not simply that there are a few cases of what they have called, including when I was living in my own home in France, “limping adoption orders” that as they admit can be inextricably linked to “satellite” litigation involving in my own case, High Court civil juries for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK that had to be nullified while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, between 2005 -2013.
The “colonies”:
The very serious legal problems with adoption legislation, pre-date the political free for all of the British referendum, supposedly about the EU.
The problem is not only that adoption legislation is of itself legally unjustifiable, but that is has become a global multi-billion dollar… industry built around making money and ‘careers’ for people across many government departments etc, who don’t make money out of stepping back and just stopping to sensibly and responsibly think about, and acknowledge, what a world without adoption legislation looks like. The last thing on the list of the adoption industry is the adopted person, who is considered as ‘incidental’ to the ‘needs’ of the adoption… industry that are prioritized. Adopted people do not exist as fodder for the ‘extrapolation’ of ‘statistics’, in ‘surveys’ (and ‘inquiries that only provide free legal representation for politicians) and so on.
It is wholly disrespectful of politicians, who are supposed to serve the public, that an adopted person, has to repeatedly confirm like I did with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 “which part of no” to adoption legislation “do politicians not understand ?” The politicians should have at the very least given a universal basic income and healthcare to people who choose to “officially” use our own identity, instead of the adopted identity, regardless of where we may choose to live.
I am not… legally obliged through the use of adoption legislation to pay money to and have the approval of any court anywhere, to “officially” use my own identity, and have my own birth certificate and other documents related to my own family, just like people who are not adopted do.
Why would I possibly need to do anything other than any other law abiding private citizen just because I am adopted, and how can any state or country justify using the array of cut and paste versions of adoption legislation, to treat me differently just because I am adopted ?
How could I possibly need to first pay money to and have the approval of a court in the State of Victoria, in Australia, to officially use my own identity in my own home in Breizh, France. I am legally entitled to notify French government departments like the waterboard company of the transfer of records kept in my adopted name to my own identity of Donna Bugat, because adoption legislation is nullified. The adoption industry is living in a state of denial about the existence of DNA. The French government would not have any legal grounds to take me to court for officially using my own identity, instead of my adopted identity, to pay bills.
I could not possibly need to pay money to or have the approval of either, the State of Victoria and Federal government in Australia, or the French government to officially use my own identity instead of my adopted identity while living in my own home in Breizh in France.
It is well known, the five ‘permanent’ members of the UN Security Council all use adoption legislation, and that the Hague Adoption Convention by 99+ countries is a politically unsustainable position that is legally unenforceable.
The use of arbitrary adoption legislation makes the supposed political controversy over ss 44 of the Australian Constitution imposed by Westminster, in Australia, over dual nationalities, look like a sideshow by comparison. The reality is adoption legislation is used as political blackmail in Australia, because an adopted person cannot stand in politics in Australia using our own identity, unless we first agree to pay money to and have the approval of a court to “officially” use our own identity, which is legally the same as forcing adopted people to agree that politicians can enact absolutely any adoption legislation they like. In fact I could not possibly need to pay money to and have the approval of a court in the State of Victoria in Australia to officially use my own identity to stand in politics in… other countries, either, where I have also legally lived.
I obviously did not voluntarily return to Australia from my own home in Breizh in France in July 2019. The political spin that adoption legislation means I need to first pay money to and have the approval of a court to “officially” use my own identity, so I am able to properly access medical treatment too, really does just beggar belief !!
The nullification of adoption legislation means a person who is adopted chooses what identity, including nationalities and citizenships we acquired through adoption legislation, we use, including to protect our own family members, even if we don’t want to use adopted nationalities and citizenships ourselves, because adopted people and our own families are just like anyone else and have relationships and live in different countries to where were adopted. It is often not even at all clear-cut if additional nationalities and citizenships are simply acquired by an adopted person, through adoption or in our own right through our own relationships, as adults.
The British courts were misleading when they said in court cases about adoption that there is no single recognized or accepted form of ‘adoption order’ because the legal reality is courts have to recognize the substance of a witness statement in… any legal proceedings. That means in my own case, I have legally ‘complied’ with any pre-action protocol that politicians in the State of Victoria have had every opportunity to legally contest in a timely manner in a court, including before at the very least a civil jury, they do not do, because the legal reality is they have been legally obliged to peacefully agree an out of court settlement, long ago.
It is reasonable, and a jury would agree, the State of Victoria are legally obliged to pay for a free Australian diplomatic passport for me in my own identity of Donna Bugat, along with $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation (they could if they choose to, claim back from the likes of the former Labour Australian PM Rudd’s legally unjustifiable Ingeus who have always worked for all ’sides’ in politics in Australia, the UK and elsewhere)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 