Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI- : British & Australian politicians et al illegal use of both legally unenforceable national (ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) & global (Hague Adoption Convention etc) political legislation against me at same time makes only possible compromise substantial financial compensation if agreement to reasonable & proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood, before civil jury trial (28.09.2021)
I did properly state “I am not the Serious Organized Criminal” with my pink sequinned banner in Parliament Square, Central London. (The political legislation to try and illegally stop peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London was called ss 132-138 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005) The real reason politicians, police and press et al illegally ordered the destruction of that banner “on the basis I might use it again” anywhere, was because they were really more worried everyone else might start wearing a t-shirt saying the same thing.
The British and Australian politicians et al use of both legally unenforceable national (ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) & global (Hague Adoption Convention etc) political legislation against me at the same time to try and stop my own peaceful freedom of expression in a court with a civil jury, and my right to claim political asylum from persecution, is obviously absolutely unlawful.
The fact both legally unenforceable national and global political legislation was so maliciously used against me in the UK with the knowledge and complicity of Australian politicians does significantly compound the still ongoing serious physical and emotional harm being caused to me.
It is the use of stand alone, reasonable self-defense to peacefully reject political adoption legislation that is legally unenforceable.
The unworkable political legislation about extraordinary adoption ‘court orders’ that is not based on any legal or health mandate, and is legally unenforceable, is so extreme, it does not impose any obligation on anyone to even inform the adopted person of the existence of the court order made against them, or for the adopted person to even see or know the contents of the court order made against them, or to at any time be given the opportunity to make our own informed choice.
The political legislation about adoption court orders, is like all political science, about voting and polls, which is clearly completely different from any professional legal and medical ethics that include at the earliest opportunity, the informed consent of the person directly affected.
The only legal alternative to political adoption legislation that is legally unenforceable, is the reasonable and proportionate use of legally reviewable care arrangements for vulnerable children until adulthood
The reason the extraordinary ‘legal gymnastics’ including a District Judge who resorted to falsely accusing me of a Contempt of Court on 26th March 2007 in the UK to try and ‘sidestep’ and ‘overtake’ the fact he could not produce a legitimate ‘case stated’ for the High Court (that was clearly never meant to go ahead, and all of which meant High Court Judges had to try and ’sidestep’ our having any hearing including in our presence in the High Court) over my original unlawful arrest and false imprisonment purportedly using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the case on 22nd February 2006 (although the case does not really bear many similarities to even ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation because it went so far beyond even the remit of that political legislation which is obviously what can happen with the use of political legislation that is arbitrary and unnecessary) happened (and which we had already proved with my unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 which the courts had also already found was ‘void ab initio’) was because I was always legally entitled to a civil jury in the Mothers Day 2006 case that is inextricably linked to 48 unlawful arrests and false imprisonments including the political torture and attempted murder of me, that would inevitably include that I equally entirely naturally and legally reject political adoption legislation that is also legally unenforceable.
What was ‘unusual’ about the legal situation that remains the same because of all the true circumstances of the case, is that it (would) include/s legal scrutiny by a civil jury not just of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation (repealed on 31st March 2012) but of the unreasonable demands of political adoption legislation too.
I remember when the British Parliament who always illegally failed to disclose in court proceedings their political agreement to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, prior to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 they illegally sought to claim they could also use ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to impose bail conditions too, as a means to try and illegally jail me by the backdoor. When I naturally ignored the bail conditions imposed in addition to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, and was then unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned while outside Downing Street, the District Judge asked police if I had a banner with me, and when police said yes, the District Judge said he could not jail me (because the police were trying to use two completely contradictory pieces of legislation etc that was even more disproportionate etc) The politicians, police and courts next then tried to illegally attach a ‘Community Order’ to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, in ‘my case/s’ to try and jail me by the backdoor. The District Judge said the police could only ‘report’ alleged ‘breaches’ of the ‘Community Order’ attached to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, to the Probation Service (no kidding) who would have to bring any alleged ‘breaches’ to court, that the Magistrates Court claimed they could use to jail me. I obviously completely ignored the bogus Community Order maliciously attached to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 too, which we actually legally posted copies of on lamp-posts all around the area, so people could see and read about the increasing political persecution using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, for themselves. Of course the top cop et al ignored the fact they could not arrest and falsely imprison me, for alleged ‘breaches’ of the ‘Community Order’ attached to ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 which they did do out of pure political spite because the bogus ‘Community Order’ which was more of a political embarrassment for politicians and the Probation Service et al, had to be completely withdrawn by the Magistrates Court because it could never credibly be produced in any higher court of appeal, all while ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was increasingly bringing the politicians and their criminal justice system into serious disrepute.
The only reasonable and proportionate alternative to adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood. This will help to stop the far too widespread use of political adoption legislation by adults who are looking to use vulnerable children as trophies for their own adult needs, while disrespectfully ignoring any voice of adopted people who entirely naturally and legally reject legally unenforceable political adoption legislation. It is completely perverse that some adults complain they are discriminated against if they cannot adopt children, because that is just hiding the fact it is adopted people being discriminated against by entirely unnecessary political adoption legislation. The alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements for vulnerable children until adulthood that are not politicized, like political adoption legislation is, will serve to encourage far wider, and more respectful and responsible adult participation in genuinely caring for many more vulnerable children until adulthood.
The government departments like Adoption Victoria are currently completely dysfunctional because their only purpose is to try and hide !! the very serious legal problems caused by political adoption legislation that in my own case includes the political torture and attempted murder of me because I entirely naturally and legally reject political adoption legislation that is legally unenforceable. It’s a legal impossibility to try and shift blame on to me for the fact the political legislation that creates such extreme court orders, is legally unenforceable.
The British & Australian politicians et al illegal use of both legally unenforceable national (ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) & global (Hague Adoption Convention etc) political legislation against me at the same time makes the only possible compromise substantial financial compensation if there is an agreement to the reasonable & proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood, before a civil jury trial (where a civil jury will obviously know that what has been done to me is seriously criminal)
The substantial financial compensation and an agreement to change from the use of political adoption legislation, to the reasonable and proportionate use of legally reviewable care arrangements for vulnerable children until adulthood, before a civil jury trial took place, would make me personally feel a) that politicians et al have not entirely got away with the political torture and attempted murder of me because I naturally and legally reject legally unenforceable political adoption legislation and b) I have helped make it harder for the political torture and attempted murder of any other adopted person who rejects legally unenforceable political adoption legislation, to happen c) I will finally have a genuine opportunity to move on with my own life.
It is inevitable with other political issues, that Australia is going to become a democratic republic sooner, rather than later, and the journey out of the extreme practice of political adoption, is part of that.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 