Donna Bugat: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc that nullified adoption legislation, provides legal basis in peaceful transition from adoption, to be liberated, and have modest choices incl. standing in democratic politics ‘officially’ using own identity & 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 (10.12.2021)
‘Press… Release’
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The primary focus of adoption legislation has always been to enforce a mostly male ‘hereditary’… state control of reproduction.
I have already conclusively proved while a law abiding private citizen and peacenik in Parliament Square, Central London between 2005 – 2013 that the ban on peaceful freedom of expression there, using ss 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act legislation was always “void ab initio” too.
It is obviously absolutely unlawful for the County Court in Melbourne, Australia to use adoption legislation to try and stand in the way of my modest ambition to also peacefully stand as an autonomous candidate in democratic state or federal elections in Australia, or anywhere else, ‘officially’ using my own identity, whenever… I choose. It is after all common for most people to at least have the option in democracies to stand for democratic election.
It is not legally possible for politicians, court staff, and the judiciary to argue including before at the very least a civil jury, they have any legal standing (locus standii) or discretion to enact adoption legislation and impose adoption orders in the first place, let alone that continue into adulthood. It could not possibly be the legitimate business of a court to claim to have legal standing or discretion to interfere in how a law abiding private citizen who has committed no civil or criminal wrong. simply through being adopted, peacefully living our own lives however we choose as adults.
It is widely known that courts refuse to without lawful excuse to keep agreed accurate and contemporaneous records relating to adoption, that resulted in the highly unusual and what politicians call a ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case about me in the UK, prior to my ‘extraordinary’ High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 etc.
I personally recommend that it would be sensible for members of the judiciary to be appointed by a civil jury and for juries to hear cases involving alleged wrongdoing by members of the judiciary to help avoid improper influence by politicians/legislators et al, and to promote genuine independence.
There are no legal grounds for the (for example) originating court in my own case 352 which is the County Court in Melbourne, to claim adoption legislation means I need to first pay whatever money the court want and have the approval of the court to ‘officially’ use my own identity, to vote or stand in democratic elections, in Australia or elsewhere.
The widespread use of adoption legislation including by the 99 + signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention along with the Islamic Jurisprudence of Kafala that includes ‘migrant workers’ has resulted in there being no adopted people in politics ‘officially’ using our own identity instead of our adopted identity. There are only two male politicians who publicly claim they are adopted and use their adopted identity (one in national politics in the UK, and one appointed to a ‘casual vacancy’ in state politics in Victoria last year) who only promote adoption legislation, which is draconian, disproportionate and undemocratic being imposed on adopted people who oppose adoption legislation.
The self promoting heads of state, judges, along with the cult of celebrity who adopt people too, publicly parade around their adopted serfs as the ‘latest must have accessory’. In my own case the people who posed as my parents and godparents from the highest echelons of the British (Fremantle) and Australian intelligence services, sent me away from Australia as a teenager because I refused to join the intelligence services for the obvious reason, I would not sign an ‘Official Secrets Act’ (ie: further entrapment which is absolutely unlawful) when I don’t even accept the secrets and lies of adoption legislation, that not only changed my name, but switched my nationalities and citizenships too. It was impossible for anyone to explain how I was raised separately from my own little sister with the same parents before she ’suddenly’ died shortly before she was supposed to come and live with me and my own family in the UK.
The facts are the former Australian Labour PM Rudd was while laundering vast sums of tax payer money like the $1.4 billion from the British Tories in the UK, to Ingeus, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London and he was involved in and lost HQ11X000563 to me, was being disingenuous when grandstanding about ’stolen generations’ and ‘forced adoptions’ to distract from jury nullification and compensation that is not contingent on politicians.
The reason my adopted name was illegally leaked by Newscorp Scotland Yard on Mothers Day 2006 to spin the ubiquitous political trial by news media scrum, that went on for years, during which I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned 48 times.
was to distract from jury nullification of adoption legislation and adoption orders, along with compensation. The British PM Johnson was the London Mayor and boss of the top cops while the so called Leader of the Opposition Starmer and former DPP was the ‘human rights adviser’ to the Head of ACPO Jones who decamped to Victoria, Australia to become DAC. The current Victorian Ombudsman was with the IPCC (now called IOPC) in the UK when Hardwick had a meeting they forgot to invite me to on 8th December 2006 they failed to make a record over, before 100 of their own lawyers resigned etc, so has a conflict of interest about my being illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020, after I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019 because of the endless real life problems associated adoption with adoption legislation. Weimar who worked for both Livingstone and Johnson et al at the GLA in London in the UK before he decamped to Melbourne, Victoria too, because of ‘financial discrepancies’ with Serco which is a Westminster creation that was involved in the ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case etc too and has vast contracts from the Australian government to ‘guard’, or rather spy on Australian embassies.
It is the British politicians with the agreement of Australian politicians who have illegally refused to (for example) hand over the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me that I properly asked for from a criminal magistrates court, so it is unclear how it came to be in the possession of politicians, all because of nullification of adoption legislation and compensation that could not be separated from the abuse of process of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. The staff at the Australian High Commission in London came and spoke with me before I was exiled from the UK too and said they write reports but politicians don’t care, which they wouldn’t while they are instead collecting brown envelopes, which is why the High Commission was then run by former politicians like Downer et al.
I obviously did not voluntarily return from my own home I love in Breizh, France, where I had lived since 2013, to Australia in July 2019 (after British and European politicians agreed in November 2015, there are legal problems with adoption legislation, but were trying to avoid compensation) but was instead forced to by the endless problems caused by the manipulative excuses of adoption legislation. I have already properly attended the County Court in Melbourne in person in July 2021 to also secure a permanent injunction against adoption legislation, and there is no legal explanation as to why the court did not immediately facilitate that hearing.
The politicians knew there were problems before the British referendum on the EU on 23rd June 2016, that corresponded with my suddenly being illegally denied legal representation in the High Court on 23rd June 2010, to illegally stop me giving evidence on the same day the former Australian Labour PM Rudd switched to Foreign Minister to keep collecting the cheques at Ingeus:
It has only ever been legally possible to have legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood (that is similar to what is called a ‘permanent care order’ in Victoria, Australia that lasts until a person is 18 years old) for vulnerable children separated from their own families that for any number of reasons that could happen to anyone, but not so that we can be used as the ‘latest must have accessory’ and so on.
The political classes and courts et al would have had to treat me with at least a modicum of respect, publicly, if I was a democratically elected politician.
The… majority of politicians in Westminster are after all unelected and in the British House of Lords who call themselves whatever they like while as Hansard from 23rd May 2000 shows there was a political agreement between all politicians prior to ss 132 -138 SOCPA 2005 to always illegally try and ban any peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London. There is no legislation that stops the state governors or governor general in Australia imposed by Westminster along with their not so Australian Constitution, or the British House of Lords and monarchy instead standing for democratic election themselves which would help the countries become mature democracies and republics.
I am not personally interested in Westminster et al’s political ‘whataboutery’ that only serves as a distraction from the fact a mature democracy with a civilised society, should be able to function properly with a publicly elected head of state with a maximum of two, four year terms, and a fully elected government that does not appoint people to ‘casual vacancies’ instead of having by-elections between general elections, and does not use an ‘electoral college’ and includes any electoral boundary changes on electoral ballot papers after proper public consultation.
It is self evident that because adoption legislation and adoption orders are “void ab initio” a person who has been adopted and wants to officially use our own identity, which is not simply about our name, can choose from any combination of nationalities and citizenships to use from when we were born, or we acquired through adoption or through our own relationships as adults including with our own families. In any legal sense we acquired any additional nationalities and citizenships in our own right.
I personally find it comforting to use my own identity because that peacefully connects me to the truth of and acknowledging who I am and my own history, rather than my adopted identity which is just part of too many and cumulative ’adverse’ consequences of adoption legislation and adoption orders. The Bugat family are and have been Jewish, Catholic and Muslim, living for centuries, often on both ‘sides’ of changing border regions around the Mediterranean including the Pyrenees, and through Eastern Europe to the Central Asian steppes etc.
I have always entirely naturally rejected adoption, since I was a small child, while I have been forced to live the life of a Cathar, conversa or ‘crypto- Jew’ throughout my own lifetime.
My pioneering voluntary, unconditional and non negotiable universal basic income of the equivalent of $3,000 Australian dollars per month that is not taxed or means tested, that along with free universal healthcare of our own choosing, also provides basic compensation for anyone of any race, religion, politics or none who has been adopted and wants to officially use their own identity, and peacefully live their own life, free from the constraints of adoption legislation and adoption orders. The fact people who have been adopted come from all walks of life, from all around the world, means that the use of truly universal income and free healthcare that also acts as basic compensation and regardless of where we live or choose to live, is also different from existing national programs about universal income, but does also phase out the use of adoption legislation with workable compensation. The phasing out of adoption legislation will also restore the… right to claim political asylum officially using your own identity.
The free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat and $1.4 billion tax free dollars from the State of Victoria is negotiable.
There are of course no legal difficulties for British and European politicians agreeing on my pioneering universal basic income for people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live, which is better than their Hague Adoption Convention, and British referendum on the EU that purported people could chose without any bureaucracy, what nationalities and citizenships to keep.
The County Court in Melbourne don’t have any legal grounds to use adoption legislation to stop me officially using my own identity to stand for democratic elections, so they have no legal grounds for adoption orders either.
I do reasonably expect the County Court in Melbourne, Australia to confirm my pioneering compensation package without further entirely unnecessary and only… political delay, because I do not need to pay money to the court and have their approval to stand in politics ‘officially’ using my own identity, that the court is illegally stopping me doing, right now.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 