Donna Bugat (Case 352 & UR12138XX): My a) stay/permanent injunction against all adoption legislation & b) compensation from Murdoch’s Newscorp 1 in 7 billion people legislation against me (04.06.2021)

Re: HCC (ref: 2021/ 03944) & St Vincent’s Hospital (UR121338XX) correspondence to me on 3rd June 2021

A reasonable and rational responsible adult and sentient human being would know it is self evident that arbitrarily… erasing in part or whole a vulnerable child’s identity including any medical information through the use of adoption legislation and all that flows from that, that includes claiming an adopted person needs the permission of and to pay money to any court and government including during a global pandemic would have an adverse wholly unnecessary and disproportionate effect on the physical and emotional health of any adopted person.

An adopted person is in addition prevented through no fault of or own from being able to give informed consent to necessary medical treatment, including in our own home, which in my case is in France.

I do currently have two outstanding health referrals for medical treatment along with various further tests that I cannot afford in Australia, that obviously adversely affects my ability to have other medical treatment with existing specialist health professionals including an appointment with the rheumatology department at St.Vincent’s Hospital on Monday 7th June 2021 because my autoimmune and related illnesses are all… connected.

The true medical position is I cannot through no fault of my own and because of my adoption get access to the necessary medical treatment that will only be possible through a health plan that with my informed consent treats… all my pre-existing illnesses.

The Public Interest & Universal Jurisdiction

My out of court settlement:

1. I therefore need a stay/permanent injunction (which is part of of my out of court settlement) against all adoption legislation so I can have proper medical treatment including while in my own home in France.

The facts of my own case are my own parents did not voluntarily give me up but were forced to by adoption and related legislation that people should have been properly informed was like all legislation legally reviewable at any time, including before a jury, even if vulnerable children were voluntarily relinquished.

It is clear it is not possible to make out any case for adoption that are all unnecessary and disproportionate because it is only legally permissible to have legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood.

The adoption legislation does not even meet any public interest test.

My stay/permanent injunction therefore applies against all adoption legislation in a global multi-billion dollar adoption industry including the Hague Adoption Convention, and the UN.

In practice my stay/permanent injunction against all adoption legislation means that all adopted people:

a) keep any… additional nationalities and citizenships and the right to live in countries, we have previously acquired through no fault of our own through adoption, and are not prevented from in addition acquiring the nationalities and citizenships of our own real family members while

b) any remaining or existing adoptions of minors revert to legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood

c) all adopted people are legally entitled at no costs to ourselves of access to all government held information about our identities including medical information, and regardless of wherever we are living, that also includes governments issuing free documentation including passports in our real names when requested, all of which I should have been able to do while living in my own home in France.

In my own case the fact I am legally entitled to for example British and Australian passports in my real name does not mean that I would actually choose to live in either country, but could instead be used to live in a third country.

It should never have been the case that any adopted person should have to try and sort out the far from legal chaos created by adoption legislation.

2. My Compensation is the transfer of ownership of Newscorp to me or $3 billion dollars from Murdoch.

I am… the only person who a) Murdoch in addition paid cash for legislation against in 2011/2012 with ss 143 etc of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 before his Times Director Lord Marlseford stated in Hansard on 27th January 2012 his ‘regret’ they had not shot me (it’s fair to say I would be replacing Lord Marlesford as a Director of the Times)

because

I am also the… only person related to ss 143 etc of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 who b) has the email showing a government et al refusing to hand over to me including in a timely manner the pre-existing CCTV including the original (of the torture and attempted murder of me) that they obviously could and should have sent to me or a person nominated by me, by registered post or courier, that I was never legally obliged to return.

It should have been my… choice to be able to bring either civil or criminal proceedings.

So, it is strange but true that ss 143 etc of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was legislation that was made against solely one person (me) out of potentially 7 billion people.

I have never personally heard of any government making legislation solely… against just one person (the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation I repealed was against just Brian but did not involve adoption or the refusal to hand over CCTV because of a pre-existing lawsuit involving… universal jurisdiction)

Murdoch’s Newscorp was obviously never going to be arguing (for example) ss 143 etc of the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was in the ‘public interest’ before… any jury in… any court of law.

It is obviously beyond all reasonable doubt that a jury would in all the true circumstances of Murdoch and any government (incl. retrospectively) making legislation just against me, while at the same time, refusing to hand over to me the CCTV (including original) that belongs to me, which is undeniably the case with ss 143 of the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011 would award me compensation of either the transfer of ownership of Murdoch’s Newscorp or $3 billion dollars from Murdoch’s Newscorp to me.

There is obviously an unusual case of universal jurisdiction regarding myself as an adopted person and adoption legislation, and Murdoch’s Newscorp that is a multinational corporation while the global multi-billion dollar adoption industry includes the Hague Adoption Convention that involves 99+ countries and the UN.

I am obviously entitled to the compensation so I can live a safe and sustainable life with proper access to medical treatment (my physical and emotional heath has been adversely affected by both adoption and then legislation made solely against me to cover up a pre-existing lawsuit)

In my own case adoption did put in place a sequence of events that put my life at risk, including with ss 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

It is self evident that ss 143 etc of the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011 did not even meet any public interest test either.

I should be able to collect both a) my stay/permanent injunction against adoption legislation (which I could effectively issue as a Magistrate because I am certainly suitably ‘qualified’) and b) compensation from Murdoch’s Newscorp from the HCC offices in Melbourne, so that I can have the medical treatment I need, including while living when I choose, in my own home in France.

Kind Regards,

Donna Bugat

(formerly known as Babs Tucker)