Donna Bugat: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 etc that nullified adoption legislation because it does not meet civil or legal threshold for enforcement, provides legal basis for pioneering voluntary & unconditional compensation incl. universal basic income & free healthcare, for people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live (15.12.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
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.
The City of London’s ‘poster boy’ Lord Myners who claims he was adopted, was elevated to the British House of Lords in Westminster because he was a busted flush as a Director of the Bank of England, Chair of Guardian Media Group and Chair of Trustees of the Tate, over Parliament Square, Central London, along with adoption legislation and the free speech ban in ss 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
I was raised by the highest echelons of the British (Fremantle) and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents, but “I am not of or from the intelligence services”.
The former British Labour PM Blair and Lord Myners et al have always illegally failed to produce a receipt for and return my succinct pink sequinned banner that factually stated “I am not the Serious Organised Criminal” that is both fact and law, the High Court subsequently did not dispute belatedly, because they knew adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 were really nullified on Mothers Day 2006, because there is and was no civil or criminal threshold met for enforcement including by police, of adoption legislation or ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
I proved the Palaces of Westminster would maliciously target a single person over a.. single banner so legislation was about what law abiding civilians said, even with… one banner. I did not need to first pay money to or have the approval of a court to peacefully publicly display my pink sequinned banner that honestly stated “I am not the Serious Organised Criminal” regardless of whether I peacefully campaigned on my own or with other people. The Law Lords et al in the Palaces of Westminster at that time, did know there was a prior agreement between all the political parties articulated in Hansard in the House of Lords on 23rd May 2000, to illegally ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
“I am not the Serious Organized Criminal” (re: 22nd February 2006):
The unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of me on Mothers Day 2006, in Parliament Square, Central London, when my adopted name was illegally leaked, was to try and distract attention from what politicians et al call a ‘black swan event’ with the nullification of adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. The only reason I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned on Mothers Day 2006 was because the government wanted to ‘discuss’ my lawsuit, which is literally all they discussed.
The former British PM Blair, Lord Myners and the Palaces of Westminster et al have always illegally failed to produce a witness statement from Inspector Lyons, from Mothers Day 2006, because the only thing he discussed with me, was… my lawsuit.
Neither adoption legislation or ss 132 -138 SOCPA 2005 met or meet the threshold for civil or criminal enforcement, let alone by police !! so there was never any reason for police to be using any force… against me as either a peacenik or adopted person, and most certainly not unlawfully arresting and falsely imprisoning me.
The global multi-billion dollar adoption industry that has never had any proper record keeping, let alone any genuine legal scrutiny of any extraordinarily ‘complex web of acquisitions, mergers, take-overs, and monopolies’ is treated by legislators et al as ’too big to fail’ etc because the only real outstanding issue is compensation for people who have been adopted. The primary focus of socially constructed iniquitous adoption legislation has always been to enforce a mostly male… state control of civilian reproduction.
Lord Myners illegally used the ‘State Britain’ rip-off by the con-artist Mark Wallinger who it transpired was paid £100,000 by the… British government for his installation in the Duveen gallery at the Tate Britain etc, that came and went with it’s many lies, while the real deal of Brian and myself remained in Parliament Square, Central London, to whitewash the… state violence being used primarily against me at that time, in Parliament Square, Central London.
The British PM Blair & Lord Myners et al have always illegally refused to produce a receipt for the ‘State Britain’ rip-off.
Another British & Australian government collaboration:
This was before, Myners while he was also Chair of the Guardian Media Group too, then also specifically lied (along with the Daily Mail) in August 2008 to illegally try and cover up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 etc.
(I later said if the ‘State Britain’ rip off that Wallinger handed to the Tate, was ever put on public display again, I would take the not very good… copies of two of my… other pink banners, because it’s not like anyone could arrest me for doing that !! after also having… stolen the real banners)
Lord Myners et al obviously knew he would not make a very credible witness against me, in front of a jury, over the nullification of adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
And my pink sequinned banner ?:
There is an obvious… irreconcilable difference, with Lord Myners being able to pay the former British Labour PM Brown money to be elevated to hide in the British House of Lords and give himself any… self promoting ‘entitlement’ he likes, while adoption legislation claims I need to as a law abiding private citizen who has committed no civil or criminal wrong by being adopted, to first pay money to and have the approval of a court to “officially” use… my own identity.
A Mike Schwarz who is a self promoting ‘human rights’ lawyer invited Brian and myself to a meeting at the Methodist Central Hall (where the first meeting of the UN General Assembly took place) behind Parliament Square, Central London, about the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me. The most Schwarz would do which is why he was fired by Brian, before Schwartz then threatened me, and told barristers that if they represented me they would not get any business from him, was to write a letter to ‘secure’ the CCTV.
The Palaces of Westminster et al have always illegally refused to provide me with a receipt (the chain of evidence) explaining how the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me that I properly asked for myself in the criminal division of a Magistrates Court came to then be in the possession of a City of London lawyer and politicians who have always illegally refused to hand it over to me.
Nevertheless, the legal reality is there were never any legal grounds for police et al to ever lay a hand on me, using adoption legislation or ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 because neither legislation met or meets any civil or criminal threshold for enforcement, let alone by… police, or including unlawful arrests and false imprisonments etc etc.
It is only legally possible to have legally reviewable care arrangements (that are called ‘permanent care orders’ in the State of Victoria that last until 18 years old) for vulnerable children separated from their own families for any number of reasons that could happen to anyone.
(I did later in HQ11X00563 on 7th October 2011 order the return of the two Banksy’s to the artist for him to do what he wanted with them himself, because the government were using them against me as a distraction from my own pink sequinned banner “I am not the Serious Organised Criminal” and Mothers Day 2006. I was after all a single divorced working mum who had been adopted, living in my own home, when my adopted identity was illegally leaked on Mothers Day 2006, and I lost my job and had to sell my home in the UK)
Another supposed ‘human rights’ lawyer who was a partner of Schwarz called Paul Ridge later committed perjury (that I had to correct) when he gave the false impression to the High Court, that I had after 16th January 2012 when new legislation had illegally been used against me, then agreed to adjourn HQ11X00563 too !! over the new legislation that had already been illegally used against me, which in my own case, was already another civil lawsuit, while Ridge et al staged a separate Judicial Review that did not and could not possibly involve me. I obviously had no legal reason to adjourn HQ11X00563 too !! because I would obviously have had a court order in HQ11X00563 too, that would have also nullified the new legislation also illegally used against me on 16th January 2012.
The Palaces of Westminster et al variously used monikers like Hall or Bulat to try and ‘confuse’ over Haw and Bugat. It is only ‘surprising’ that Schwarz does not claim to be representing Lord Myners at the Palaces of Westminster phoney undercover inquiry about Special Branch etc.
It has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt the Palaces of Westminster were never going to let me give evidence on a witness stand in the High Court, let alone before a jury.
The Palaces of Westminster stashed our campaign property they had repeatedly kept stealing over the years and always refused without lawful excuse to return, that had variously been stored in Hendon or Charlton, in the Museum of London in the City of London. There has however never been any trace of the whereabouts of my original pink sequinned banner that said “I am not the Serious Organised Criminal” (a ‘version two’ was also stolen by the government)
Lord Myners is a freeman in the City of London, where the Museum of London in the City of London have always refused without lawful excuse to provide me with a receipt of the property that was stashed there. Myners was of course while Chair of (for example) Global Counsel with Lord Mandelson also Chair of the Board at (for example) Edelman when they were helping Johnson get elected in 2019 etc etc.
The fact some adopted people may wish to keep their adopted identity is legally irrelevant, and does not mean adoption legislation can continue to be imposed on anyone.
Lord Myners is not going to oppose my pioneering compensation in any court before a jury, and we are about as different as it is possible for adopted people to be from each other.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 means there are genuine… choices for adopted people that mean phasing out adoption legislation because :
a) people who are adopted adults can obviously choose to keep their adopted identity
b) people who have been adopted can… choose to officially use our own identity instead of our adopted identity without first paying money to and having the approval of a court, like the County Court in Melbourne, along with receipt of my pioneering voluntary and unconditional universal basic income of the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month along with unlimited free healthcare of our choosing…
… that also serves as compensation for any people from any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted, regardless of where we live or choose to live…
… that cannot be taxed, means tested, or made subject to any fees or fines,
People who have been adopted and choose to officially use our own, rather than adopted identity can also choose what residencies, nationalities and citizenships we were i) born with, or ii) acquired through adoption (because the legal reality is we acquired any additional nationalities or citizenships etc in our own right, because otherwise that would be entrapment which is illegal) or iii) through our own relationships as adults with our own families, to use.
The fact people who have been adopted come from all walks of life, from all around the world, means that my pioneering universal basic income and free healthcare extends beyond limited national trials so that it can also serve to help identify improvements. It would probably be sensible to have a civilian board to oversee the management of the pioneering use of universal basic income etc for people who have been adopted.
My additional claim for a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity and $1.4 billion tax free dollars from the State of Victoria, is negotiable, but my pioneering universal basic income etc that includes the State of Victoria, is not negotiable.
I love my own home in the Breton Woods in Breizh, France that I should never have been forced to leave, when I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019, because of adoption legislation, so my court order would obviously also be filed by the State of Victoria in Geneva too.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 