Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case 352 etc): My ‘Bogan’ Court Order for a voluntary trial by adopted people of New Jerusalem of universal legally reviewable safe & sustainable health & social care, with SteveJ paid to oversee with absolute right of audience as McKenzie friend in any court, means permanent injunctions against adoption legislation & ‘golden calf’ of British House of Lords possible (26.07.2021)
I… knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong.
The simplest explanation that only legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood are legally possible, instead of unworkable adoption… legislation, remains true.
The reality is adopted people who come from all walks of life from all around the world are not a “subclass” of human beings who need to “apply” for anything, while the revolving doors of the political and news media classes make global multi-billion dollar submarine deals.
A socially constructed political policy of poverty that can only be achieved through state violence, is always completely avoidable.
I obviously didn’t film this, on Mothers Day, that Brian also recorded:
There is no-where adopted people can apply for political asylum, despite the fact adoption legislation can improperly be construed so broadly by unscrupulous people, it could be arbitrarily applied to anyone.
I was raised by the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents who named me after an Italian mafia boss in Melbourne, called Barbara when it is admitted they were spying on the Italian community. I was forced to leave Australia as a teenager because I rejected adoption but they were never going to let me just waltz off and get on with my own life, with my own identity and family.
Adoption legislation that… punishes an adopted person for being adopted, before further… punishing an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation, was… intended to be forever.
The true legal reality is it is the legal responsibility of governments to confer the … legal certainty of any… additional citizenships on children in ‘out of home care’ that can only be renounced by the named person because we are not a “subclass” of human anywhere:
The man who posed as my godfather publicly identified himself when he became Director General of ASIO, but I still did not get my own identity back, despite the fact publicly available records clearly identified me as being associated with him, although I am not and never was. There was no way the people who posed as my parents and godparents were ever going to look me in the eye and say the adoption legislation in 1984 then also applied to me when the man who posed as my godfather was still Director General of ASIO, and I was living overseas, because they knew adoption legislation was completely unworkable and that I did not need to pay money to, or have their permission or anyone else’s to have my own identity.
It was never possible despite some well meaning people for adoption legislation to ever become legal because it is wholly arbitrary and disproportionate. Adoption legislation is at its best a list of unreasonable demands imposed on adopted people that do not apply to other people, that in other circumstances would be recognised as not only coercive and exploitative, but open to abuse by unscrupulous people including politicians. People who have full time nannies or are sent to boarding school by their parents do not have the same lived experience as adopted people, and adult soldiers need to be paid money and be given weapons before they agree to be separated from their family, potentially forever.
I am the same person who was in Parliament Square, Central London on Mothers Day 2006 and 16th January 2012 who was then exiled to France in 2013, where I lived in my own home in the Breton Woods, before the referendum on the EU, and my being forced to return to Australia in July 2019, before the global pandemic, while the numbers of people in the completely undemocratic British House of Lords grew exponentially during that time.
The legal reality is I am also legally entitled to a permanent injunction against the British House of Lords, that is not contingent on a permanent injunction against adoption legislation. There is no comparable institution to the British House of Lords in Australia, the EU or the United States because the fact there are peerages in other places people often have to pay to maintain, a peerage cannot automatically confer the special privilege of legislative rights, that even the British monarchy who are Head of State in numerous other countries do not have.
Two examples are a person who was Chairman of the BBC on Mothers Day and covered up the truth of my High Court… jury lawsuits on Mothers Day 2006 and January 16th 2012 could not and should not have special privileges of legislative rights in the British House of Lords and neither should someone who became an Australian Baroness in the British House of Lords in 2019, who had also been one of Murdoch’s mouthpieces, along with posing with the Green party who also covered up my High Court jury lawsuits on Mothers Day 2006 & 16th January 2012. Neither legally could or should (including within their own House of Lords Reform Act 2014) automatically have the special privilege of legislative rights in politics in Europe or the EU, they do not and could not have in Australia or the United States.
My permanent injunction against the British House of Lords which is not contingent on my permanent injunction against adoption legislation, is against the British House of Lords “special privilege” of legislative rights, because my lived experience of Parliament Square, Central London does highlight there should be a publicly elected second chamber instead, to help stop corrupt public officials and politicians being rewarded by simply being elevated to the British House of Lords. A publicly elected second chamber may well mean further referendums on the EU, and the London Mayoralty that was used by “successive governments” to try and illegally ban peaceful protest in Parliament Square, Central London to try and prolong the undemocratic British House of Lords.
A global pandemic does highlight that it is economically possible for adopted people who are numerically approximately around the same size of a city like Melbourne, but would not necessarily want our own state, that we are legally entitled to in reasonable self defence, like the Jewish State, to trial a New Jerusalem of genuinely universal health and social care.
I know from my own lived experience it is legally possible to begin with the State of Victoria to roll out a New Jerusalem of universal legally reviewable safe and sustainable health and social care voluntarily trialed by adopted people throughout the 99+ countries that are currently part of the Hague Adoption Convention, although some countries include countries who are not part of the Hague Adoption Convention that is in any event, widely understood to be legally unenforceable.
__________________
My ‘Bogan’ Court Order:
It makes legal sense (ie: this is what I know from my ‘lived experience’ I could legally argue with a permanent injunction against adoption legislation) for the relevant state to upon notification from a formerly adopted person by email which is sufficient and can be verified (it is agreed I was unable to get relevant CCTV records from the UK in a timely manner so adopted people cannot always access necessary records of all sorts):
a) pay for all the financial costs of any new documentation with our own identity
b) pay the financial costs for an adopted person to own our own home wherever we currently find ourselves living (I have never had the lived experience of living in my own home in Australia because of adoption legislation, so I don’t know what that is like) based on an average sale price in the centre of the most expensive area in the most expensive city.
This is regardless of any other home an adopted person may own, so that all adopted people have at least one home we can buy and sell as we wish that provides us with some safe and sustainable opportunities. The fact I own my own home in the Breton Woods in France could not for example affect my right to also own my own home in Australia paid for by the State of Victoria based on the average sale price in the centre of the most expensive area in the most expensive city, in the country, because the prices are so different, even if the personal value I place on my own home in France is priceless (refer e).
The fact is successive State of Victoria or Australian Federal governments (who all have the same political parties anyway) have all had the legal obligation and opportunity to ensure I could live in my own home in for example Melbourne, Australia, the UK or the Breton Woods in France… before this global pandemic.
This would also provide stability for formerly adopted people who are still minors because it means it is only adult carers who would have to leave, and be replaced by another adult carer like in aged care.
An adopted person of any race, religion, politics or none is legally entitled to an absolute right of return to register to live in the Universal Old City of Jerusalem because adopted people had our entire …history… erased, so I do not need the permission of anyone else including any other Jewish person to be Jewish and live in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world. I would similarly not be asking the Spanish State for permission to be Jewish with their citizenship panjandrum, because I am an… adopted person, with Jewish ancestry, so the recent Spanish legislation about people with Jewish ancestry is completely unreasonable and unworkable for an adopted person, who may have already faced way too many intrusive bureaucratic obstacles throughout our lives. The fact I personally accept that Catalonia is not going to be a Jewish State, does not mean it is acceptable for me as an adopted person to still need the permission of the Spanish state to be a Jewish person to live in Catalonia in Spain. The Jewish State acknowledges it has struggled with agreeing the concept of who to consider Jewish, and how a single Jewish state can determine that, which could not apply to Jewish people who do not live in the single Jewish State, that a New Jerusalem of universal health and social care voluntarily trialled by adopted people which includes adopted people with Jewish ancestry, helps to address too.
The important legal point is if any state could completely erase the entire history of an adopted person, which is what has and does happen, then any state must be legally obliged to let any adopted person live in any state we might choose.
There is so much history of all sorts for an adopted person to try and catch up with, including at our own pace.
The total number of adopted people is not going to change the “demographics” of any country, not least because not all adopted people will choose to live in the same area or single country.
c) pay to the adopted person the equivalent sum of the job keeper payment in Australia completely tax free forever that can be paid to us regardless of wherever we choose to live that is raised annually according to living costs.
The legal reality would be adopted people can earn whatever we like over and above that amount that is effectively part of a legal out of court settlement for adopted people, with any amount over and above that becoming taxable, at a basic universal rate.
d) a government funded universal gold healthcare card so we can get whatever healthcare treatment we choose wherever and whenever we want, that includes any and all related travel and accommodation costs.
So the relevant state is legally obliged to facilitate our choosing… healthcare anywhere in the world at any time. Most people would obviously prefer not to travel for healthcare.
e) a New Jerusalem of a universal health and social care plan voluntarily trialled by any adopted person, does not change the legal reality of any adopted person’s pre-existing lawsuits like mine from the UK, although I would be unlikely to pursue compensation from Murdoch’s Newscorp and Angus Knight beyond the costs of maintaining and updating my existing property in the Breton Woods in France with clean renewable energy etc, when my voluntary trial of universal health and social care is agreed.
My voluntary trial of universal health and social care is obviously always legally reviewable in the affirmative in the sense that positive ideas which were agreed could always be added.
I would personally recommend SteveJ be paid to oversee the voluntary trial by adopted people of universal health and social care, because he could make any necessary representations from adopted people, with an absolute right of audience as a McKenzie friend in any court.
_____________
My ‘Bogan’ Court Order is obviously preferable to a… global class action against adoption legislation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 