Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors; Supreme Court legally obliged to agree by email that I do not need court order to as a person labelled ‘adopted’ have legally officially renounced draconian adoption legislation because politicians, police & courts et al do not have any legal authority to oppose that & I have not committed any known civil or criminal offence by doing so (& how fundamental failure of ICC is the focus on ‘national’ legal issues than more commonly global and interconnected legal issues) (07.03.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
I was labelled ‘adopted’ and helped force ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that publicly and maliciously labelled me a ‘serious organised criminal’ for peaceful freedom of expression, off the statute books in the UK while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, before it could be extended throughout the country. It is and was highly unusual for a small group of law abiding private citizens to force legislation off the statute books and politicians do discriminate against law abiding private citizens forcing unlawful legislation off the statute books. We were peace campaigners of any race, religion and politics or none in Parliament Square, Central London.
Blair is undeniably guilty of at the very least breaching the public trust placed in him, to illegally abuse public office and enact ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK that he… intended to continue in the UK, beyond the Iraq War. He did knowingly discriminate against law abiding private citizens legally forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation off the statute books, including in a relatively short time frame. Politicians know it is unreasonable for law abiding private citizens to wait around until it might happen to suit any… politicians to take ‘unnecessary’ legislation off the statute books. It is not the case that law abiding private citizens need to be elected or unelected politicians or heads of state to live within the peace and harmony of the rule of law and democracy and force unlawful legislation off the statute books. The latest British Tory PM Johnson, who was a former Mayor of London and boss of top cops was no different from Livingstone with both supporting ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and were also like the current Labour Leader of the Opposition Starmer as DPP who also supported ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. The fact no politician or head of state is ‘more important’ than any law abiding private citizen means it is also unlawful for politicians and heads of state to forcibly ‘conscript’ people for and instead of themselves, so all wars are arguably a state failure to consistently support peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens instead.
The British politicians were noticeably used to supporting groups who are bankrolled by the public (at least on the face of it) to specifically stage a ‘political stunt’ or two including those who are physically able, in return for free publicity, and pleading guilty to whatever, using the money they raised from the public to pay off an entourage of lawyers and any fines while getting a judicial slap on the wrist leaving politicians happy to say the said group had ‘made their point’ (which is about as far as the usual political mindset extends as far as peaceful freedom of expression is concerned) It is widely known that corporations will pay an ‘in-house’ distraction to help maintain their false profits. The politicians did not support us as law abiding private citizens actually challenging the legality of their ‘gateway’ ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation that was only about what politicians wanted and not about peaceful freedom of expression, (where politicians personally used the legislation to make up all sorts of other malicious prosecutions illegally using other legislation too) can include jury nullification of legislation and compensation, because everyone can help try and make peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens that should not be contingent on physical or financial circumstances, as accessible as possible for more people.
The British Tory and Labour politicians in the UK showed with their referendum on the EU, which could only be just another exercise in trying to shift blame on to civilians, they only… remain at the vanguard of opposing freedom of movement by law abiding private citizens. The British referendum failed to recognise it is not the case that law abiding private citizens freedom of movement is responsible for financial inequality, because it is logically possible for more people to have more small businesses that benefit a greater number of people.
It is also a fact that one of Blair’s ‘vanity projects’ he personally promoted was draconian adoption legislation. I would not personally as a person labelled ‘adopted’ be lectured by the likes of Blair about draconian adoption legislation either.
There are not many adults who if fully informed about draconian adoption legislation would… freely and… willingly… consent to it being arbitrarily imposed on them. So no-one can claim vulnerable children or other adults who are labelled ‘adopted’ should be ‘conscripted’ by draconian adoption legislation forever. It is only legally possible to have legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ for vulnerable children separated from their own families for any number of reasons that could happen to anyone, people automatically ‘age out of’ as adults including because it is not legally possible to claim some adults cannot make all our own decisions like other adults do, simply because we are labeled ‘adopted’. In my own case, my own parents automatically ‘aged out of’ now defunct legislation used against them that resulted in my hasty ‘adoption’. So I was only illegally separated from my own family including my little sister who died, who had the same parents, solely because draconian adoption legislation was used against me. I was sent away from Australia as a teenager because I was not ‘grateful’ about being labelled ‘adopted’ because that means I was treated completely differently from even the adult strangers who raised me. It is clear that adults who are equal do not need draconian adoption legislation because they can consent to a court having oversight of whatever their own arrangements are they can apply to a court about instead.
There is of course a question of how the State of Victoria thought it was lawful to not only change vulnerable children’s identities, but nationalities and citizenships that people are told are supposedly the business of the Federal Commonwealth government who issue passports. In my own case, the State of Victoria also involved the British government in my so called ’adoption’ without any legal oversight of anything and with conflicting draconian adoption legislation that also did not take into account how people can live in other countries, in my own case, like New Zealand or in Breizh, France, where my own… home is.
It is clearly illegal to restrict my peaceful freedom of movement by refusing to issue an Australian passport in my own identity, because I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation. I am legally entitled to move on with my own life free from the endless political interference of draconian adoption legislation.
It is the case that courts do not recognize that someone labelled ‘adopted’ has the legal right to… choose our own legal assistance, at any time. Politicians who do not promote people who are labelled ‘adopted’ being able to even… choose our own legal assistance, including a McKenzie friend, at any time, cannot even begin to justify anything to do with draconian adoption legislation that has such far reaching, and wide ranging, life changing consequences.
It is clearly entirely unreasonable for anyone to expect a person labelled ‘adopted’ to have to return to in my own case Australia to go through onerous court proceedings according to draconian adoption legislation that is legally unnecessary and unjustifiable however anyone looks at it. The draconian adoption legislation is not about the ‘best interests’ of a person labelled ‘adopted’ because even as an adult I am stopped from living in my own… home in Breizh, France because I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation which is just used as a… punishment against anyone labelled ‘adopted’ who opposes it.
The fact I was unlawfully arrested both inside and outside a court in Melbourne, Australia, in December 2021 when I had not even voluntarily returned to the country in July 2019 ( and if we are being honest I was never exactly voluntarily in the UK either) and solely because I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation inside or outside any court of law, only highlights draconian adoption legislation is unlawful. I have not committed any known civil or criminal offence simply by as a person who is labelled ‘adopted’ officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation. It is not a selling point that a person labelled ‘adopted’ could be arrested simply for officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation. It wasn’t a selling point that a law abiding private citizen could be arrested simply for renouncing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. There was a very serious breach of trust by politicians and the so called ‘Adoption Information Service’ in the DOJ and the County Court in Melbourne, Australia, who did the dirty deeds of ‘adoption’ in failing to inform people who are labelled ‘adopted’ there is a fee exemption in the Supreme Court for adoption and the related ‘habeas corpus’ cases that I only discovered by happenstance.
A fundamental problem with the British-led ICC is that it’s sole focus is on the ‘national’ which ignores that a significant number of serious legal issues that are not subject to any international legal oversight, are more commonly actually global and often inter-connected, that at the very least should be subject to some sort of international civil courts, with juries. This includes for example the inconsistency of peaceful freedom of expression for law abiding private citizens, and the globalised ‘adoption’ industry based on ‘commodifying’ vulnerable children in a free for all of supply and demand in a global ‘marketplace’. The fact around 5 million people worldwide are collectively labelled for convenience as ‘adopted’ rather than 5 million people in one country forcibly having their identity changed, along with nationalities and citizenships arbitrarily switched, means that what is labelled ‘adopted’ that is intended to last forever, regardless of any prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm is not properly recognised by agencies like the ICC, who only deal with whatever they might happen to consider is a ‘national’ problem. The fact it is generally recognised it is unlawful to arbitrarily change the identity, nationality and citizenships of a ‘minority’ or particular ‘group’ is not applied when it happens across ‘national’ borders with for example the label of ‘adopted’ who are however a specific ‘group’ and ‘minority’. There is a seriously flawed gap in the proper ’interpretation’ of the peace and harmony of the rule of law. There was a need for at the very least an international civil court with juries, to help stop the escalation of what is then incorrectly positioned by the ICC as solely ‘national’ legal issues.
The Supreme Court in Melbourne, Australia is legally obliged to agree by email that I do not need court order to as a person labelled ‘adopted’ have legally officially renounced draconian adoption legislation because politicians, police and courts et al do not have any legal authority to oppose that & I have not committed any known civil or criminal offence by doing so.
My flexible pioneering compensation that really does include a truly universal basic income and healthcare means:
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)
A kinder evolution is achievable.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 