Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: Liberal PM (Morrison) & fmr Labour PM (Rudd) could not legally justify to any civil jury (I never waived my legal right to have) to refuse to provide me with free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat & $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation so I can live in my own… home in Breizh, France. They knew they could not legally permanently… trade my physical & emotional health by labelling me ‘adopted’ & themselves effectively ‘parents’ using draconian adoption legislation they have never been able to legally justify to a civil jury, while also knowing I could not legally be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced for… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation (10.02.1962)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The politicians who are the… perpetrators behind draconian adoption legislation do not have any legal authority to try and bypass a civil jury and nullification of the legislation, with the provision of compensation, by instead spinning the distraction of any number of ‘inquiries’ etc themselves that are only solely about whatever might happen to suit them. It is misleading of politicians to variously portray draconian adoption legislation as too big to fail, or the only legislation in the whole world that could never be nullified including by a civil jury who can confirm compensation. The political… misappropriation of the meaning of commonly understood words like ‘parent’/’sibling’/’family’ for political expediency in draconian adoption legislation is both legally and… medically unlawful.
The politicians, public officials and courts have never kept accurate and contemporaneous let alone agreed… legal records relating to draconian adoption legislation because the legal realities… undermine the public claims of politicians. The legal reality is politicians were always legally obliged to make ‘basic disclosures’ of and provide proper access to information it always was for someone labelled ‘adopted’ to choose what to do with. The politicians have always only sought to dictate terms of access to personal information that suits them while illegally withholding or destroying information that is not useful to them.
In my own case there is repeated evidence of the most senior politicians being found (by courts in the UK in cases involving Australian politicians) to have not only illegally withheld evidence against politicians, but of politicians illegally destroying evidence against them.
More of the same from the meddling ‘allowed’ and ‘permission’ racket:
The existing and proposed legislation over the use of completely politicised ‘integrated’ so called ‘birth certificates’ in adoption (that was never even put out for public consultation and could easily re-traumatise someone labelled ‘adopted’ because it is so overtly political) could only really be for people labelled ‘adopted’ who for whatever reason of their own might wish to continue to incorporate the confusing and obfuscatory political, rather than legal, description of ‘parent’… beyond the nullification of draconian adoption legislation. The politicians never had any legal authority to legislate that people labelled ‘adopted’ could be forced to call adult strangers who were carers ‘parents’ or to arbitrarily change the identities, nationalities and citizenships of people labelled ‘adopted’. The politicians have used draconian adoption legislation to… misappropriate the word ‘parent’ to either literally or effectively permanently label themselves ‘parents’ by first labelling vulnerable children ‘adopted’. The central deception of draconian adoption legislation is that it dishonestly purports that politicians can permanently transfer the rights of people when they are vulnerable minors to themselves, that continues throughout adulthood for someone labelled ‘adopted’. The politicians would reasonably know the true legal… boundaries are it is only legally possible to have legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable children automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood.
I know this to be true because my own parents automatically ‘aged out of’ now defunct legislation used against them that resulted in the unseemly haste of my by contrast being permanently labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation. This meant I was also raised separately from my little sister with the same parents who ‘suddenly’ died not so long after I found her, and not long before she was due to come and live with me in the UK. Then politicians compounded the harm by also using the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 I helped force off the statute books in the UK, because it automatically labelled me a ‘serious organised criminal’ simply for being in Parliament Square, Central London. It was ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that taught me that state violence happens by political… design, and not by chance, or as a result of ‘a few bad apples’ who intend to at the very least cause PTSD. The Australian politicians illegally used draconian adoption legislation while I was in the UK, to try and deny I am an Australian citizen.
Westminster couldn’t really hide it was all political, but they did hide the truly shocking and unrelenting state violence they used:
It beggars belief that a two-faced meddling politician actually said someone labelled ‘adopted’ should be able to remove the names of what politicians call adoptive parents, from birth certificates in ‘special circumstances’ as though politicians had the legal authority to issue… fraudulent birth certificates:
The very serious legal problems with the political ‘over-reach’ of draconian adoption legislation include someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation being illegally stopped from freely making the same lawful decisions children and adults who are not labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation, can and do make.
Another Attorney General without any ‘legal standing/locus standii’ to meddle:
The very serious issue of a political refusal to provide any opportunity for someone labelled ‘adopted’ to freely and privately access personal medical information from …any… family members (that politicians generally do have access to and know) highlights why it is not legally or medically possible for politicians et al to simply legislate to misappropriate the word ‘parent’ to publicly use however they would like for political reasons.
The politicians and their cult of celebrity who obviously all want as much free publicity for themselves as possible, perversely… use people labelled ‘adopted’ to publicly grandstand about their own alleged health issues instead, to deliberately… distract from the very serious fact people labelled ‘adopted’ have since being vulnerable children, through the use of draconian adoption legislation always been arbitrarily… denied any… opportunity of freely and privately receiving… medical information from our… own… family members. The fact adults who wish to be carers may have medical issues of their own could never be used to justify the use of draconian adoption legislation. The politicians have also been… legislating to try and portray the… political use of draconian adoption legislation could also be construed as ‘cultural’ which ignores a persons right to at least have the opportunity to receive… medical information which is so central to health and wellbeing, from our own family members, without others being able to portray themselves as family members instead. The truth is healthy relationships with genuine carers can only bed built through respecting proper… boundaries like legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ people automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood. Someone who has always been a responsible carer would always remain a significant person in the life of the person who was cared for.
It is simply not legally or medically possible/legal to… misappropriate words like parent, sibling, children or family, to substitute with politically expedient versions that it is not legal to impose or force on anyone by using the label ‘adopted’. Many of the well known problems with legally unjustifiable draconian adoption legislation exist with commercial surrogacy (in practise all surrogacy is commercial) The members of the Monash University Law Department would not be repeating before any civil jury their crass notion that politicians have the ‘human right’ to legislate to lie about the identities of people labelled ‘adopted’ so politicians et al can label themselves ‘parents’ etc.
The Monash Law Department would not repeat before any civil jury, their notion that politicians have a ‘human right’ to legislate to… lie about the identity of someone labelled ‘adopted’ so politicians can call themselves ‘parents’ for commercial reasons:
It is truly disgusting that people labelled ‘adopted’ are in the absence of the only legal alternative of legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ we automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood, subjected to endless political whims not only enforced by the state apparatus, but accompanied by the whole panoply of social engineering ‘experts’ with what are at most personal opinions that are legally irrelevant. The adoption industry provides endless opportunities for academics (at a time when much of academia has been subsumed by crony capitalism) eager to use the label of ‘adoption’ to further their own career with the latest ‘theory’ on how to best… meddle in the lives of people they have no business meddling in. Everyone is an individual who was legally entitled to our own legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ we should have automatically ‘aged out of’ at adulthood instead of being a ‘social experiment’ we never signed up to.
The free for all of adoption and surrogacy industries are built on the same premise of exploitation that has never been about caring about the… health of vulnerable children:
The only dystopian direction of travel, politicians empathy free use of draconian adoption legislation that was then basically extended to commercial surrogacy is heading is politicians and their wealthy supporters wanting to ‘commission’ children using artificial wombs.
The legal reality is the current Australian Liberal PM (Morrison) & fmr Australian Labour PM (Rudd) could not legally justify to any civil jury (I never waived my legal right to have) a refusal to provide me with a free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat ( I could not possibly be legally obliged to put my trust in politicians and there were never any legal grounds preventing a jury awarding compensation including a free diplomatic passport in my own identity) & $1.4 billion dollars tax free compensation (it is undeniable the only reason Rudd was able to benefit from the contract from the British Tories was by covering up etc my winning HQ11X00563 over Mothers Day 2006 etc) so I can live in my own… home in Breizh, France. They knew they could not legally permanently trade my physical & emotional health by labeling me ‘adopted’ & themselves effectively ‘parents’ using draconian adoption legislation they have never been able to legally justify to a civil jury, while also knowing I could not legally be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced for… officially renouncing their draconian adoption legislation.
It is… commonsense, it is a legal certainty Victorian Police knew they could not arrest me on 21st December 2021 because I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation.
A free Australian diplomatic passport in my own identity of Donna Bugat works for me instead of the ‘integrated’ completely politicized so called ‘birth certificate’.
It’s hardly unusual or unreasonable, that I would want to move on with… my own life instead.
Most people know politicians and heads of state who are not ‘more important’ than any law abiding private citizen, do not speak for or on behalf of or instead of everyone. Most people would agree it would be responsible to have an International Civil Court including the choice of civil juries, that could legally review ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable children automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 