Donna Bugat: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc provides legal basis in peaceful transition from adoption, for voluntary receipt of unconditional compensation, with pioneering global universal basic income & unlimited healthcare package for people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live (30.11.2021)
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.
The ‘first person’ consistent account of a law abiding private citizen who is adopted, in a public space including courts with at the very least a civil jury, about adoption legislation takes precedence over grandstanding by the revolving doors of politics and news media.
The primary focus of adoption legislation has always been enforcing ‘hereditary’ mostly male state control of civilian populations reproduction. It is an undeniable fact, the majority of the revolving doors of the legislative and news media scrum globally, are, after all, mostly male.
I already had my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc in Parliament Square, Central London, before the political ‘cross border adoption’ discussion in the European Union after they visited London in November 2015, while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France. The politicians et al briefly conceded in their civil servants discussions about ‘cross border legal issues’ in ‘Policy Department C’ of the ‘Directorate General for Internal Policies’ about ‘citizens rights and constitutional affairs’ on 1st December 2015, just a few of the longstanding problems with all adoption legislation, that highlights adoption legislation is of itself essentially unworkable, wherever it is used, globally. They acknowledged there is no international legal body that oversees adoptions and the accompanying array of legislation.
My own adoption has never consisted of anything other than what is called a “limping adoption order” that has always been completely unnecessary and legally unworkable:
The politicians et al knew because of the abuse of process of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation that arbitrarily criminalized peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, that would have been nullified by a High Court civil jury on Mothers Day 2006, before politicians had to in any event repeal it, that it was legally possible for adoption legislation to be nullified by at the very least a civil jury too, at that same time.
Refer: (the ‘hidden’ world of adoption’) https://donnabugat.com/2021/11/16/3309/
I don’t want a free ‘replacement’ of what is nevertheless still a phoney birth certificate (my own ‘sixth schedule’ certificate, was actually stolen and destroyed by the British government before I was actually charged for a replacement dated 29th April 2015 by the Australian government, while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France) because I am legally entitled to officially use my own, rather than my adopted identity, without first paying money to and having the approval of any court:
It is obviously not legally possible to say that an adopted person cannot legally nullify and repeal legislation with a civil jury, if that would also mean adoption legislation also being nullified too. It is widely known but not properly acknowledged, that adoption legislation can perversely be used to punish without law, law abiding private citizens who are adopted and do not go along with adoption legislation. So adoption legislation which is in all circumstances, completely unnecessary, can cause life threatening physical and emotional harm to the very person it purports to protect, which is the adopted person. The reality is most people do not voluntarily choose to have our own family lives disrupted or destroyed by the state during peacetime, wars or global pandemics.
The problem is not and has never been with law abiding private citizens who are adopted and either do not or cannot ‘adapt’ to always changing adoption legislation globally. The problem is with adoption legislation itself, and those who are trying to impose it, including without any proper regard for the true consequences for the person who is most affected, throughout our lives, which is the adopted person. There are no legal grounds to use adoption legislation to claim an adopted person needs to first pay money to and have the approval of a court anywhere, including in the originating state, to officially use our own identity, including to apply for passports, or stand in politics, in the originating state or elsewhere, or to claim political asylum and so on and so forth.
The legal way to peacefully right the long standing historical wrong of adoption legislation is with a transition to the voluntary choice of receipt of unconditional compensation comprising a pioneering global universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package for people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live.
The unconditional compensation comprising the universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package, is tax free, and cannot be means tested, and does not affect any any other income, the adopted person may receive, or court settlements in any other lawsuits about anything else (like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005).
It is pioneering because it offers genuine choices for people who have been adopted, including by serving as both compensation and a truly universal income and unlimited healthcare package that is available to adopted people who come from all walks of life around the world. This means it will also help safely identify any problems beyond the various array of national schemes about universal income that do not include such a broad range of people from all walks of life from all around the world. It also means adopted people will have the ability to make our own choices in our own time, about where we live and, with whatever nationalities and citizenships we were born with, or have acquired through adoption, or in our own right with our own relationships and families, throughout our lives. The fact some adopted people may choose to maintain their adopted identities, and not voluntarily receive compensation, does not provide legal grounds to impose any part of any adoption legislation on any other adopted person.
The pioneering compensation that takes the form of a global universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package is both progress and the future, that adoption legislation can never be, in a world where most people are united towards less inequality. The signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention are jointly liable for a universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package for people who have been adopted that should include a financial sum of the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month (that could only be annually increased to maintain the same value) and immediate and unlimited access to any healthcare of the choosing of the adopted person, so that an adopted person does not need to bring legal proceedings against a single or multiple states. The signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention have the ability to provide the money and services without the adopted person needing to take any state or multiple states to court. The financial compensation would have to be held in trust for adopted people who are minors, until they are adults, so they know they will have financial security in their own right, unless there are circumstances where it needs to be made available to minors before they are adults, although minors would still have to have, access to immediate and unlimited healthcare of their choosing too, that is in addition to what they might otherwise have access to.
There is an abundance of examples of national schemes for universal basic income, and people having the right to choose to keep and acquire new nationalities and citizenships like with the supposedly ‘phased’ changes from the British referendum on the European Union. So it is absolutely legally possible to achieve a much more positive transition from adoption legislation for people who have been adopted, with the pioneering truly universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package, that means the adopted person does not need to pay money to or have the approval of any court to officially use our own identity.
The governments all have records of the basic fact of which people are adopted, even if the records kept do not come close to being an accurate or contemporaneous record of much else, so an adopted person must have the choice of simply notifying any court, that the adopted person voluntarily accepts receipt of the compensation package. The courts all have a responsibility to confirm to someone who asks a court, if they are adopted or not, because politicians et al, did not make it mandatory for adopted people to be told they are adopted, although that becomes harder to do these days, including with DNA. I should never have needed to leave my own… home in the Breton Woods in Breizh, France that I love in so many ways, and return to Australia in July 2019, because of the continuing endless problems with unworkable adoption legislation, that can make an adopted person a perpetual refugee who has no legal representation, for no other reason than because of unworkable adoption legislation.
The fact my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 provides the legal basis for voluntary receipt of unconditional compensation, with a pioneering global universal basic income and unlimited healthcare package for people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live, means I would naturally oversee the outcome, that I would be a part of myself.
It would be sensible for me to have a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat, with the outstanding financial compensation of $1.4 billion tax free dollars that could then be attributed solely to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, although I don’t mind arguing over that so much, before a civil jury.
My personal… priority is to ensure a pioneering global universal income and unlimited healthcare package that has the additional benefit of also serving as unconditional compensation for people who have been adopted, becomes a reality. That clearly has so much potential for people from all walks of life from all around the world who have been adopted, that would then obviously help inform what could and is more likely than not, to become more usual all around the world for everyone.
The County Court in Melbourne will agree with the wording that I just file in Geneva, in Europe, because the substance of what I am saying is clearly… legally workable.
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). The full picture shows me holding the paperwork.
__________
Donna Bugat: The physical & emotional harm caused to me by my “limping adoption order” was seriously compounded by politicians illegally stopping my civil jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 over Mothers Day 2006 etc because it would also result in nullification of adoption legislation, so a genuine choice for adopted people of a pioneering alternative of unconditional universal basic income & free unlimited healthcare that also serves as compensation will help phase out adoption & includes my own additional compensation of free Australian diplomatic passport & $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation (02.12.2021)
The physical & emotional harm caused to me by my “limping adoption order” was seriously compounded with the… unconscionable additional actions of politicians who further discriminated against me by illegally stopping my civil jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 over Mothers Day 2006 etc… because it would also result in civil jury nullification of adoption legislation. So a genuine choice is for adopted people to voluntarily receipt of a pioneering alternative of unconditional universal basic income & free unlimited healthcare that also serves as compensation, that could help phase out adoption, along with my own additional compensation of free Australian diplomatic passport & $1.4 billion tax free dollars compensation.
The British politicians were very clearly in 2015 trying to illegally hide that it cannot legally stand that an adopted person could be excluded from a civil jury lawsuit that would nullify any another legislative abuse of process like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 because that would also nullify adoption legislation.
A reasonable and rational adopted person would not want to be burdened with a) not only what politicians prefer to refer to as a “limping adoption order” but to b) also be excluded from civil jury lawsuits about nullifying other legislative abuses of process because that would lead to the nullification of adoption legislation too.
There is an identifiable… pattern of politicians and the judiciary in adoption cases ‘glossing’ over and ‘side-stepping’ the legal reality there is no legal or logical connection between a child in care, that happens, and the imposition of a draconian adoption order that while in any circumstances is completely unnecessary and disproportionate, is easy for politicians to use to exploit vulnerable children.
This misleading “comment” by a Sir Richard Aikens on literally his way out of the judicial door, in politicians politically staged legal woo for public consumption over adoption legislation in 2015 (before Aikens supported UK politicians leaving the EU in 2016) that doesn’t even pass the sniff test of “obiter” would “tend to bring the courts into serious disrepute”:
In fact, it is the… adopted person they illegally want to stop having a civil jury, to nullify adoption legislation.
The primary focus of adoption legislation has always been enforcing ‘hereditary’ mostly male state control of civilian populations reproduction, regardless of how anyone tries to spin that. It is an undeniable fact, the majority of the revolving doors of the legislative and news media scrum globally, are, after all, mostly male. In Westminster the majority of overly entitled politicians are actually unelected because of the anomalous British House of Lords which has an incredible 800+ members pontificating about all sorts. There is no comparable institution to the British House of Lords in for example either the EU or United States, which have much larger civilian populations than the UK.
The only sensible peaceful course of action is people who have been adopted having a genuine choice of:
a) maintaining their adopted identity and going along with any adoption legislation anywhere
or
b) not needing to pay money to or have the approval of any court to officially use our own identity instead of our adopted identity, along with the voluntary receipt of an unconditional pioneering universal basic income of the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month and free unlimited healthcare of our own choosing wherever we live or choose to live, that also serves as compensation, that is not taxed or subject to any means test, along with the legal right to choose to use any nationalities and citizenships we were born with, or acquired through adoption, or in our right in our own relationships as adults with our own families, throughout our own lives, that may naturally phase out adoption legislation. It is only unreasonable adoption legislation that is stopping me from living in my own home in the Breton Woods in Breizh, in France, which is extremely unfair etc.
The introduction of a genuine choice for adopted people that also serves as compensation means that an adopted person also does not need to face not only what is the abuse of a “limping adoption order” but is free from the further discrimination that seriously compounds that harm by being illegally stopped and excluded from civil jury lawsuits to nullify other legislative abuses of process. I am legally entitled to claim the additional compensation of a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat and $1.4 billion tax free dollars because it is unconscionable that politicians further discriminated against me by illegally stopping my civil jury lawsuit over Mothers Day 2006 to nullify the abuse of process of ss 132- 138 SOCPA 2005 because it would also nullify adoption legislation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_______________
Donna Bugat: I am a law abiding private citizen so politicians & courts cannot legislate to & illegally issue defective & undemocratic ‘limping adoption orders’ that purport I need to first pay money to & have the approval of originating County Court in Melbourne to “officially” use my own identity, incl. to access civil juries & to stand in state & federal politics in Australia or politics elsewhere, while majority of politicians in Westminster are unelected & in anomalous British House of Lords who call themselves whatever they like, because politicians & courts are only illegally trying to stop legal challenges in courts & politics (03.12.2021)
I will need to be able to collect the compensation from a court, other than the County Court, next week.
It is clear that if I was a politician, then politicians and courts et al would have to treat me with a modicum of some respect that is currently entirely lacking.
The County Court in Melbourne (who are obviously not impartial in terms of illegally issuing defective and undemocratic “limping adoption orders”) illegally failed in their legal duty to facilitate a court hearing for my permanent injunction against adoption legislation when I attended court in person on 5th July 2021.
The County Court will need to arrange for another court to issue my back-dated compensation next week.
It is self evident politicians and courts do not have any legal standing to legislate and impose adoption orders.
There is an identifiable pattern of a gap in political and judicial “reasoning” about adoption that does not explain why or how a child in care, which happens, could have a disproportionate and draconian life sentence of adoption without parole imposed. There are no legal grounds that explain the state imposing adoption on an adult. In fact there are no legal grounds to impose adoption in any circumstances.
The politicians were illegally trying to stop my jury nullification of adoption legislation on Mothers Day 2006 in the UK.
The former Australian Labour PM Rudd and the now Liberal Senator “call me Dave” Sharma have always profited from playing both political “sides” for their own personal profit, while illegally enforcing adoption legislation. This included while they had their cult of celebrity publicly wittering on, in 2008, pontificating about how they should be able to exploit adopted children for tax breaks !!!! and have tax payer funding to run their ‘private’ agencies that they do, rather than people who have been adopted being compensated. Rudd has after all always been a poverty profiteer himself, using Ingeus to keep claiming the tax payer dime regardless of which political “side” is in power in for example Australia or the UK. The politicians and cult of celebrities so called ‘private’ company ’Adopt Change’ is solely about ripping off the tax payer dime.
It’s the “needy” politicians, and their cult of “celebrity” who are overly precious about being called carers, who are the problem:
The focus of adoption has always obviously been about the fixation on enforcing hereditary mostly male state control of reproduction. It is obviously not legally possible to legislate to force adopted people to call their carers “parents” and “family” regardless of whatever the cult of politics and celebrity spin, about the real lives of ordinary law abiding private citizens.
The tall tales from tinsel town:
They all illegally covered up my Universal High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc.
In 2015 the UK and EU were only arguing about “how” to keep adoption going, while I was living in my own… home in Breizh, France.
A politician who is using an adoption court order to stop a law abiding private citizen who is adopted standing in politics in our own identity without their approval, has a considerable number of legal problems, including trying to impose additional orders, including outside the sphere of a court without at the very least a civil jury.
That much was clear with for example ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
The discrimination is clear because a politician who publicly claims to be adopted, and supports adoption legislation, can fill a casual vacancy in politics in Australia, between elections with their adopted identity, without needing to pay money to or have the approval of any court, or to be elected, and there are no questions asked about what nationalities or citizenships the person is born with, regardless of whether it is state or federal politics.
The only reason politicians and courts legislate and impose defective and undemocratic “limping adoption orders” are to illegally enforce hereditary… state control over reproduction, and to illegally try and stop that being publicly challenged in courts and politics.
_______________
The choice:
The only legally possible option is for people who have been adopted to have a genuine choice of:
a) the people who have been adopted and are… adults, can maintain their adopted identity and go along with whatever draconian and abusive adoption legislation there is anywhere
or
b) an adopted person does not need to first pay money to or have the approval of the originating or any court to officially use our own identity, and to peacefully live our own life, and have voluntarily receipt of a pioneering unconditional universal basic income of $3000 Australian dollars per month & free unlimited healthcare of our choosing, that is not means tested and also serves as compensation, where-ever we live or choose to live, and freely stand in politics in Australia or elsewhere with our own choice of nationalities and citizenships we were born with, acquired through adoption, or our own adult relationships with our own families, throughout our lives
that will “more likely than” not result in adoption being…. naturally phased out.
I am in addition legally entitled to a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat and $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation, because of being illegally denied at the very least a civil jury in a timely manner etc, that I will use to stand in politics, because what is important is that I am able to freely stand in politics, and with my own identity, without needing to first pay money to or have the approval of a court or politicians.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 