Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria: I am issuing a subpoena to Premier of Victoria & amending County Court Order 28 May 1963 to end politically motivated crime of ‘adoption’ (Australia & UK etc) that automatically releases everyone from s44 of Australian Constitution (12.07.2020)



I am Donna Bugat.



… the crime of ‘adoption’ and its true multicultural ‘minority’ hidden by the cult of ‘politics’ and ‘celebrity’ and their s44 dual nationality denial …




I do not have to apologise and be grateful to the perpetrators of the crime of ‘adoption’.


The crime of ’adoption’ has only ever been ‘normalised’ by one sided propaganda from the cult of politics and celebrity, who want to hide, it was always foreseeable in my case and others what can and does go wrong.


No-one was ever coming to rescue children from the crime of ‘adoption’ because of the involvement of the entire state apparatus.


The fact I am ‘amending’ my County Court Order in Victoria, Australia, to end the crime of ‘adoption’ speaks for itself.


I always said, if some people chose to support the legislative abuse of the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 anti competition free speech ban in the UK, that was their own business, that did not mean they could presume it could be violently imposed on those of us who by contrast peacefully forced its repeal through the courts.


I have conclusively proved no-one could ever put me on a witness stand before a jury in a criminal or civil court to try and deny ‘adoption’ is a crime.


The reality that by my ending the crime of ‘adoption’ that automatically also ends s44 of the Australian Constitution for everyone, is regardless of whether I or anyone else likes it or not.




I was raised by the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents to forcibly change my dual national identity to a different dual national identity etc etc when I was falsely imprisoned as a child in a secret politically motivated trial held behind closed doors, without my having any legal representation.


There is a problem not with a child, but with… a society that holds secret arbitrary trials of vulnerable children who have no legal representation behind closed doors.


I now know, I was the target of and maliciously targeted by a legislative cover-up later made in Australia in 1984 (when I was already forced to live overseas) involving the man who posed as my godfather when he was Director General of ASIO. He and others who also worked for ASIS etc, intended to stop my peacefully asserting my legal right to… amend my County Court Order because successive governments would reasonably know ’adoption’ and all that can flow from that, is a crime.


There was only ever a false debate over ‘nurture v nature’ unfairly imposed on vulnerable children, that was really intended to hide the crime of ‘adoption’ and its accompanying abuse, because there was very clearly no nurture from the people who posed as my parents and godparents. The people who posed as my parents and godparents had never wanted me, which is why they never cared about me, and never stopped lying to me.


Even the true multicultural ‘minority’ from the crime of ‘adoption’ has always been hidden by the cult of ‘politics’ and ‘celebrity’ with their own s44 ‘dual identity’ denial.


A gordian knot in my own transnational case revolves around dual nationality and s44 of the Australian Constitution, so by ‘amending’ my County Court Order to release myself from the crime of ‘adoption’ I automatically release everyone else from s44 of the Australian Constitution too, whether or not I or they like it.


My ‘adoption’ was set up to fail me, while I was also always treated differently from my brother from a different mother and father for the obvious reasons, which was not his ‘fault’.There wasn’t a single Italian in the social group of the people who posed as my parents and godparents who were trying to forcibly ‘assimilate’ me against my will, in any and every abusive way.


It is devastating the only ‘normal’ world I have known since I was a small child is PTSD, because the trauma and what was… intended to be a lifetime of false imprisonment meant I was never taught and given the opportunity or skills like most people, to plan and have my own safe and sustainable… future.


It is completely unacceptable that I have needlessly suffered the prolonged psychological torture of PTSD since I was a small child because of the trauma caused by the crime of ‘adoption’ and what it was entirely  foreseeable could go with that. There were no checks and balances and safeguards that would give me a safe space or any release from a lifetime of forced false imprisonment by the adult perpetrators.


It is very strange for me to discover that something called ‘self awareness’ exists, and to feel and experience that, for myself, which is a necessary part of learning how to overcome and recover from PTSD, to help me make my own properly informed choices and decisions.


My abusers never intended for me to live in the ‘here and now’ making my own informed choices and decisions that could lead to a safe and sustainable future… for me.


The original ’perfect’ crime of state sanctioned ’adoption’ using the entire apparatus of the state, means the adult perpetrator/s do not even have to ever confess they committed the original crime of ‘adoption’. This also means children might not even know if their nationalities had been changed, meaning it was impossible for them to make the necessary informed choices as adults, including about standing in politics.


The crime of ‘adoption’ means it could not be clearer that s44 of the Australian Constitution is ‘void ab initio’.


The fact children were denied the most basic medical information about our own families was deliberate negligence, premised on the fact, the entire state apparatus did not care about our physical or emotional health.


The global crime of ‘adoption’ only really started to unravel in my own case, because I peacefully exercised my right to free speech in the UK to try and stop terror which literally sickens me. That led to the repeal of the anti competition ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 free speech ban which was ‘void ab initio’ there, that led to the ‘blanket ban’ on me living in the UK… because I did not know the County Court Order from 28 May 1963, in Victoria, Australia, existed.


There was no pretence the people who posed as my parents in Australia completely opposed my free speech in the UK.


It is important for people to respect peaceful free speech which is essential for child and adult victims of crimes, and particularly those who have PTSD.


My own ‘lived experience’ means I know there is a safe alternative to the crime of ‘adoption’.


The only possible legal alternative is ‘guardians’ who cannot change a child’s identity, and must ensure through the courts, vulnerable children removed from their parents and entire family for any reason are guaranteed fully comprehensive medical and insurance cover that comes with legal representation and the ability to amend court orders, to as a starting point, genuinely help protect the best interests of vulnerable children.


It is common-sense, the issue of nationality and or dual nationalities must always remain the… option of the child affected, including when they are an adult.


A legal framework for guardians is not beyond the capabilities of the political classes.


Any adult or state who does not want to guarantee a vulnerable child who is removed from their entire family, such basic legal checks and balances and safeguards that are a reasonable alternative to the crime of ‘adoption’ which has ‘normalised’ too many ‘hidden’ physical and psychological abuses, cannot legally care for vulnerable children. 


The basic checks and balances of the peace and harmony of the rule of law provide mutual obligations that give a child the necessary trust they need to build a safe and sustainable life.


Someone who really cares about vulnerable children would want as a guardian for a child to have what is necessary so they can both build and enjoy an open and healthy relationship based on mutual respect.


The crime of ‘adoption’ arbitrarily removed any and all rights from children because it did not include any obligations of any kind for the adults.


I am issuing a subpoena against the Premier of the State of Victoria to legally settle my case now.


It is of no interest to me who happens to be the Premier because my over-riding objective is to amend my County Court Order and end the crime of 'adoption'. 


The Premier of the State of Victoria is legally obliged to produce the birth certificate of my little sister Jennifer Bugat born on 4 September 1964 (I was raised separately from who died on 10 September 2000) to go on my County Court record.


The people who posed as my parents (who were resident and married in Hong Kong too, in the Cathedral which is another of those ‘in perpetuity’ land deals) and their ‘agents’ no longer enjoy any power, through that Court Order, although I will keep my own and their multiple dual nationalities, so I and my two sons can live where we live and have lived.


I am a natural born Australian citizen who is also a British dual national citizen etc (that documents suggest ‘technically’ include, without my knowledge, Hong Kong too) with my home in France.


The Premier of the State of Victoria should have legally settled my case while I was still in my own home in France, but he has not dealt with it in a timely manner while also refusing me over 55 public housing in Victoria, during the past year, while I languish on hospital waiting lists too, all of which only benefits politicians like himself.


I no longer have any confidence in the Premier of Victoria, who while involved in employing Sir Ken Jones as DAC in Victoria… knowing my High Court Order from April 2008 already existed against Jones et al in the UK !! before I legally blew the whistle in the High Court in the UK on 21st June 2010, so I was illegally denied legal representation on 23rd June 2010, which was the same day the Labour party in Australia switched leadership, has only indulged himself with extraneous ’inquiries’ (because ‘inquiries’ provide free legal representation for… politicians) instead of peacefully attempting to settle my longstanding case, which is why I am serving… him, with a subpoena.


It is something of an understatement to say Premier Andrews has 'no plausible deniability'. 


I most certainly do not as an adult, personally trust any politician using a global... pandemic !! to grandstand to camera, while enjoying their own privacy to personally regularly test and treat themselves privately whenever they like, while preventing the public including people like myself with existing illnesses, (including autoimmune illnesses) from having the same ability to regularly test ourselves in the privacy of our own residences without an entourage of onlookers etc etc. 


Of course, most people know, there's nothing new about the political classes 'socially distancing' from the public, which is the rule, rather than the exception, because a cheap soundbite or headline doesn't translate into a sensible conversation on civvy street or as evidence before a criminal or civil jury.


I have always lived the autonomy of the peace and harmony of the rule of law myself, regardless of the cult of politics and celebrity, so my own personal view is the future is autonomous states of all kinds, within one functioning global legal system, rather than what are otherwise states built on the mob rule of anyone’s ego.




The Premier of the State of Victoria is legally obliged to pay me through the County Court of Victoria, my entirely reasonable tax free ’consultation’ fee of $2,088,000 now and an annual tax free ’consultation’ fee of $36,000 (that will rise according to cost of living).  This will mean I can make my own informed choices and decisions about my own physical and emotional health, that are free from what has in my case, always been wholly improper political influence, throughout my entire life.


The Premier of the State of Victoria is legally obliged to file my amended County Court Order from Victoria in Australia, that ends the crime of ‘adoption’ with the ACA -and- my Court Order from April 2008 in the High Court in London in the UK.


There is a considerable legal difference between people filing a birth certificate with a state and a wholly arbitrary ‘adoption’ order.


I will nominate a person to if necessary act as an intermediary with any government departments in the future so that I can avoid having to repeat anything myself, because that can only unnecessarily re-traumatize me, while my focus should properly be on building a safe and sustainable future.


Kind Regards,


Donna Bugat