Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case 352 etc): My ex-parte permanent injunctions against adoption legislation & British House of Lords restores absolute legal rights of legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, and publicly elected second chamber with fixed terms, and people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted to voluntarily register to live in Universal Old City of Jerusalem (30.07.2021)
My name is Donna.
T
I… knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong.
Adoption legislation is by definition a protection racket.
- The politicians et al have no special privilege to legislate adoption so a permanent injunction against adoption legislation restores the absolute legal right of vulnerable children in out of home care, to legally reviewable custody arrangements only until adulthood that cannot in part or whole erase any part of our identity, instead of adoption legislation that is always intended to be forever.
- The British House of Lords have no special privilege to legislate anything including their ban on peaceful protest in Parliament Square, Central London to indefinitely prolong themselves on whatever terms they like. So a permanent injunction against the British House of Lords restores the legal right in a democracy for a publicly elected second chamber with fixed terms. This will at the very least provide a long overdue opportunity for greater plurality in politics, and may also result in further referendums on the London Mayoralty (& GLA Act 1999 that led to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) and EU. There is no comparable institution to the undemocratic British House of Lords, in for example Australia, the United States or EU.
- The fact adopted people come from all walks of life from all around the world means that although we are legally entitled to have our own state in reasonable self defence, does not necessarily mean we would collectively want one. We do however as adopted people, with permanent injunctions against adoption legislation have an absolute legal right to regardless of our race, religion, politics or none voluntarily register to live in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem, with our right to claim political asylum anywhere restored. It also means an adopted person does not need to ask anyone else’s permission including that of another Jewish person to be Jewish and live in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world that was founded in reasonable self defence that is not contingent on the Balfour Declaration or Zionism.
The British Parliament… knew when I was unlawfully arrested on Mothers Day 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London (when the BBC et al illegally leaked my adopted name) that I had a historical High Court… jury lawsuit that would give me permanent injunctions against adoption legislation, ss 13-138 SOCPA 2005 (now repealed), and the British House of Lords, that would also restore the absolute right of people of any race, religion, politics or none who have been adopted to voluntarily register to live in the Universal Old City of Jerusalem, and claim political asylum anywhere.
It is as people know, quite common for unscrupulous politicians, including those who buy political votes, to legislate whatever they want with an absolute disregard for the peace and harmony of the rule of law, in the knowledge it can be onerous for an ordinary law abiding member of the public to bring a legal challenge.
The true legal position is politicians and people who adopt children do not have any legal rights over vulnerable children that can be conferred through adoption legislation that could be construed so widely it could be used by the state against any group that is out of political favour at any particular time. The legal reality is politicians et al have no special privilege to legislate adoption which is a purely political policy that is not legally permissible.
There is nothing that cannot be sensibly achieved through legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children in out of home care, until adulthood, that could possibly necessitate the wholly disproportionate state interference of an unworkable list of unreasonable demands by adult strangers which is the sum total of all adoption legislation. Adoption legislation not only punishes an adopted person for being adopted but further punishes an adopted person for rejecting adoption legislation. No amount of legislation can legitimately force adopted people to identify those who adopt them as parents or families.
It cannot be that adoption legislation is the only legislation in the world that cannot be subject to permanent injunctions, and in particular when a permanent injunction against adoption legislation simply restores the proper due process of legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children in out of home care, until adulthood. The permanent injunction against adoption legislation eliminates what is otherwise purely a political policy inevitably subject to unscrupulous and unreasonable demands by politicians and public officials using it for their own personal financial profit and political advantage, that in any other circumstances would at the very least be considered coercive and exploitative.
There is nothing stopping politicians conferring the legal certainty of any… additional nationalities and citizenships on children in out of home care, to match those of any responsible adult carers, without changing anything about the original identity of a vulnerable child in out of home care, with it not being possible for any… additional rights of nationality or citizenship that have been conferred, to be renounced, other than voluntarily by the named person.
The permanent injunction against adoption legislation means that adopted people are also suing for the restoration of our original identities with the ability to maintain at our own discretion, any additional residencies, nationalities and citizenships conferred on us through adoption legislation, which… confirms the same legal rights that should exist for legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children in out of home care until adulthood.
The court clearly cannot ask me for or force me to pay a fee for a revocation because that is not what I am asking for because I do not recognise the legitimacy of any adoption legislation (incl. the phoney revocation legislation in 1984 that did not exist at the time of my adoption that was only intended to try and pretend adoption legislation was legitimate) or the legitimacy of any court to make an adoption order, in the first place, because I am saying all adoption legislation is void ab initio, like we proved ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was.
I do not have to pay any further fees in a…. pre-existing court case, where I am claiming costs and financial compensation against the State of Victoria and others that is also inextricably linked with my still outstanding High Court Habeas Corpus Order from 16th April 2008 etc when the London Mayoral switch took place.
In addition, it is a legal impossibility to explain why if I did not need to pay any court fees for the Court Adoption Order made against me, why I would need to pay any court fees now for a permanent injunction against the legislation that did that.
The DJCS in the State of Victoria are an example of a government department who is not impartial and trustworthy so they are not a fit and proper public body to hold the sensitive personal information of adopted people.
It is essential for there to be an impartial independent body to…. safeguard the sensitive personal information of adopted people.
There is no legitimate purpose in a government department who is certainly not impartial, to hold the sensitive personal information of adopted people (particularly when government departments have already selectively changed and falsified sensitive personal information) that gives them any legal grounds to… question an adopted person about our own sensitive personal information (that is essentially a fishing exercise) in a meeting/s, under the guise of that anything but impartial government department making their own submissions to courts that have no… legitimate purpose.
There needs to be an independent body to safeguard the sensitive personal information about adopted people.
A jury would never believe it is a…. co-incidence the DJCS failed in July 2019 to provide proper disclosure in my case, that delayed it’s proper progress, including with other government departments, like the BDM, that directly led to my being threatened by phone by an unknown male on 31st December 2019 (while I was still waiting for the complete information from the DJCS) who said that my adoption case would never go before court (that was what the people who posed as my parents and godparents had always been trying to stop too) which it never would if I also recognised… a court had a right to use adoption legislation that means… anyone else has the right to refuse revocation.
Adoption legislation is by definition a protection racket.
I now know, the people who posed as my parents and godparents from the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services, have along with the DJCS always been completely dishonest in their highly selective limited disclosures (I hadn’t previously seen much of the partial disclosure of information the DJCS did disclose in 2019 because… the people who posed as my parents had stopped me having access to it) that were also intended to illegally stop my having permanent injunctions against adoption legislation.
The people who posed as my parents and godparents, from the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who named me after a mafia boss in Melbourne called Barbara, at the same time the intelligence services were spying on the Italian community, before the man who posed as my godfather was Director General of ASIO at the same time the further bogus 1984 adoption legislation was enacted, all knew they could never look me in the eye and say I needed to pay them money and have their permission to have my own identity etc in their involvement in the state protection racket, stealing vulnerable children’s true identities.
It is an undeniable fact, the British PM Johnson (while also a paid journalist, former Mayor of London and boss of top cop and also still an American citizen) who is the definition of an unscrupulous politician with no substance, did along with Murdoch’s Newscorp repeatedly maliciously prosecute Brian and myself illegally using the unedifying spectacle of (by their own admission) the “rabble” of their “parliamentary press gallery” (and Special Branch et al for slightly longer than two weeks) before the same Johnson is now paying Angus Knight to try and cover all that up which included the torture and attempted murder of me.
Last time I looked it is not legal for Johnson who is a… politician to claim he owns the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, and can therefore impose whatever conditions he likes on my having that CCTV, (incl. by trying to force me to agree it is… solely a civil case which a jury in a civil case, would be unlikely to conclude) which has not happened in a timely manner.
It is purely political when politicians illegally leak whatever they like, while illegally refusing to hand over the evidence of what they really do… behind closed doors.
I am unfortunately also literally the first person in the world, the British PM Johnson who has had his own identity and the choices that go with that while enjoying every privilege in life, stole umbrellas from and maliciously tried (and failed) to prosecute me, for being in errr… peaceful possession of an umbrella in a public space. It is not possibly to politely say what else happened.
The State of Victoria “put in place a sequence of events” that causes me physical and emotional harm, so they (who also illegally imprisoned me in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020 in the knowledge I should have been able to live in my own private home in Australia or the Breton Woods in France without being constantly punished because I reject adoption legislation) have single and shared liability with Murdoch’s Newscorp who owe me $3 billion dollars compensation and Angus Knight who owe me £300 million pounds compensation all of which might help me, put Johnson out of business, because he will not be able to rely on using private companies against me.
The legal reality is the British PM Johnson is not going to (for example) take me or Angus Knight to court for my taking Angus Knight to court over their private contract with him (including after him losing yet another of his malicious prosecutions against me in front of a Crown Court jury on 8th May 2013)
We had already proved the British PM Johnson et al illegally issued warrants when we left the High Court on 10th April 2013 after I had filed papers on 8th April 2013 pointing out the government had “no recognised defence in law”:
It is self evident that a permanent injunction against adoption legislation in one Hague Adoption Convention country will eventually apply across all those legal jurisdictions. I should have never been forced to leave Australia as a teenager because I rejected adoption legislation which was the same reason I was exiled from the UK and stopped from living in my own home in the Breton Woods in France in July 2019 too.
My intention is to contribute financial resources to support an… independent body to safeguard the sensitive personal information of adopted people.
I am the same person with the same case in (for example) either Australia or the UK.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 