Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: I was not legally obliged to leave my own… home in Breizh, France, to… officially renounce draconian adoption legislation & receive compensation including… free Australian passport in my own identity, because I have… already proved politicians, police & courts et al have no legal reasons to arbitrarily restrict my peaceful freedom of expression & movement etc regardless of my race, religion, politics or none (14.02.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
There are no genuine ‘choices’ for adopted people with what are only the political…excuses of draconian adoption legislation because it can only ‘work’ for adopted people who go along with it for whatever reason, despite the legal reality it is neither necessary or justifiable in a civilised and democratic society. It is not possible to claim adopted people are a ‘homogenous group’ of people who have all agreed as minors to be arbitrarily deprived of so many rights that varies widely between cases, and it is a legal impossibility to claim an adopted person commits any civil or criminal wrong by… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation.
I was not legally obliged to leave my own… home in Breizh, France to return to Australia to… officially renounce draconian adoption legislation and receive compensation including a free Australian passport in my own identity. I had… already proved I did not need to return to the UK either. The legal reality is politicians and courts have no legal reasons to restrict my peaceful freedom of expression or freedom of movement by refusing to provide me with a replacement passport in my own identity at no cost to me, just because I am adopted and… officially renounce draconian adoption legislation. The politicians cannot pass the buck back and forth over draconian adoption legislation between for example state and federal politicians in Australia, or different political parties and courts etc.
This is what draconian adoption legislation really means:
The legal situation is arguably the same with regard to for example drivers licenses that are supposed to be about passing a drivers test (I have for example British and New Zealand drivers licences) not whether or not an adopted person… officially renounces draconian adoption legislation !!
The politicians and courts could not legally refuse to provide me with an Australian passport in my own home in Breizh, France, because that would effectively make me both stateless and under a form of ‘house/country arrest’ etc etc, which is essentially the same far from legal situation in Australia.
It is unconscionable and absolutely unlawful for an adopted person to be arrested inside or outside any court of law for… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation. I have… already comprehensively proved beyond all reasonable doubt with a criminal jury, that 48 arrests and imprisonments including the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me because I am adopted, while I have had a High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, are absolutely unlawful. The most politicians could have had the choice to legally do is argue about compensation with a… civil jury which… they chose not to do. Of course the two Blair’s (former British PM & top cop) et al also proved beyond all reasonable doubt they were never using ss 110 of SOCPA 2005 either to arrest me because they ever wanted a ‘prompt and effective investigation’ of anything, not least since politicians et al did their best while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, to illegally destroy as much evidence as possible of my being adopted, including my DNA.
There isn’t anyone who could reasonably claim ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (that was like draconian adoption legislation subject to jury nullification on Mothers Day 2006) or for example the British referendum supposedly about the EU in 2016 that involved a political vote with accompanying legislation could… never be changed. It is always possible to acknowledge rights, including additional rights, that people can choose to use or not use themselves, but it is not possible to arbitrarily deprive people of existing, including additional rights they are already using. The fundamental problem with draconian legislation has always been that it deprives an adopted person of so many rights, including due process, because draconian adoption legislation falsely purports… courts do not even have to ever inform a person they are adopted and of the existence of an adoption order made by a court.
The reality is that when it comes to adoption, British and Australian PM’s and Leaders of the Opposition are only protecting each other, not law abiding private citizens who are adopted.
The legal reality is it is only legally possible to have legal reviewable ‘care arrangements’ until adulthood for vulnerable children separated from their own families for any reason that could happen to anyone. This means any documents including passports must be in a persons own identity, and held in our own right, so politicians and carers cannot politicise ‘care arrangements’ for their own adult agendas through draconian adoption legislation. The documents that are officially issued with regard to draconian adoption legislation are in any true legal sense, legally meaningless because governments have never made or kept any accurate or contemporaneous legal records of adoption that in any event cannot legally change DNA. The politicians and courts have specifically refused to make or keep records of any prolonged life threatening physical or emotional harm caused to an adopted person by draconian adoption legislation.
I do not need anyone to ‘attest’ to my own identity as an adult, including because Australian and British politicians have always had the information they only always illegally withheld… from me. The politicians always knew my own parents had automatically aged ‘out of’ now defunct legislation used against them, that resulted in my being adopted, while politicians have always incorrectly claimed an adopted person could never automatically ‘age out’ of draconian adoption legislation. It is absolutely unlawful for politicians and courts to even try and deprive me of an Australian passport, in my own identity, because I…officially renounce draconian adoption legislation, that in effect makes me both stateless and imprisons me, at the very least under a form of ‘house arrest’ and in my own case also breaches ‘non refoulement’ because I did not voluntarily return to Australia, to then also be unlawfully arrested both inside and outside a court of law, because I completely understandably … officially renounce draconian adoption legislation, that follows an adopted person everywhere.
In fact it is entirely normal and and legal for an adopted person to prefer to use our own identity, like most people can take for granted without needing to…justify that to the satisfaction of complete strangers including politicians, police and courts. My renouncing draconian adoption legislation does however go beyond what name I choose to use, because of course even if it was possible to as an adopted person, change my name by ‘deed poll’, (which it is not clear it is legally possible for an adopted person to do, that in any event does not address the problem of draconian adoption legislation) would still not change the continuing unlawful use of draconian adoption legislation against me that adversely affects every part of my life, every single day, for no legal reason.
The question it has always proved impossible for politicians et al to legally answer:
It is particularly vulgar and disingenuous when adults who adopt people… publicly… use adopted people (which also breaches the… privacy of… all adopted people, including because an adopted person has to identify ourselves as adopted to disagree) to grandstand about their own adult problems instead, while portraying themselves as ‘saviours’ of and ‘part of’ and ’connected’ to the ‘experience’ of adopted people. An… adult who adopts a vulnerable… minor cannot in any way compare their ‘experience’ to that of an adopted person, because draconian adoption legislation is… arbitrarily imposed on and against an adopted person, that deprives an adopted person of so many rights, including while we are vulnerable… minors, that is not in any way, the case for adults who adopt. The political… excuses of draconian adoption legislation have only ever been about the… exploitation of vulnerable children, while distracting from adult problems, that is an additional burden imposed on an adopted person, we are expected to be grateful for too. To even begin to claim draconian adoption legislation could ever mean… courts never have to even inform a person they are adopted and subject to a court order relating to draconian adoption legislation is simply legally untenable and unsustainable. I am not legally obliged to be… grateful to politicians for exploiting me, using draconian adoption legislation. Those adults who do genuinely care about vulnerable children would want and accept legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ only until adulthood for… all vulnerable children, separated from their own families for any reasons, instead of trying to forcibly change the identities and so on, of vulnerable… children including… forever, to suit adult strangers agendas. It is just dishonest to claim that an adopted person has no… feelings like anyone else who was not adopted would, about also being… arbitrarily completely isolated from all our own family members forever, by complete strangers, despite never having committed any civil or criminal wrong.
The only possible outcome over the groundhog of Mothers Day 2006:
My pioneering two part compensation includes:
a) a person of any race, religion, politics or none who has been adopted having the choice to voluntarily and unconditionally receive the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month, tax free that cannot be ‘means tested’ in any way, along with universal free healthcare of our choosing regardless of where we live or choose to live that also serves as a real universal basic income because people who are adopted come from all walks of life from all around the world and cannot be expected to keep ‘starting over’ in any circumstances.
(that would in my own case be paid by the State of Victoria)b) exemplary and aggravated damages in individual cases that in my own case should be $1.4 billion tax free dollars (again paid by the State of Victoria)
(I should be able to collect my compensation from the Supreme Court in Melbourne, in Victoria)
It’s not legally possible to refuse to provide water to me because I… officially renounce draconian adoption legislation:
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 