Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors; Re: SAUR ref XXXXXXXXXX, Breizh, France & I should never have needed to return to Australia & have permission of Australian politicians & courts to be free from draconian adoption legislation I should automatically have aged out of at adulthood that would have also meant I was free to apply for French passport in my own identity, before, during or after Brexit (18.08.2022)
Sent: 18 August 2022 07:09
To: consul.melbourne@ambafrance-au.org <consul.melbourne@ambafrance-au.org>; information.canberra-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr <information.canberra-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr>
Cc: dp&c@dpc.vic.gov.au <dp&c@dpc.vic.gov.au>; Gannon, Andrew <andrew.gannon@police.vic.gov.au>; ACT-Information-Access@afp.gov.au <ACT-Information-Access@afp.gov.au>; general@tpav.org.au <general@tpav.org.au>; Anthony Carbines <anthony.carbines@parliament.vic.gov.au>; minister.carbines@dffh.vic.gov.au <minister.carbines@dffh.vic.gov.au>; robin.scott@parliament.vic.gov.au <robin.scott@parliament.vic.gov.au>; daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au <daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au>; tim.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au <tim.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au>; spectator@ipgmedia.com.au <spectator@ipgmedia.com.au>; preston.housing@dhhs.vic.gov.au <preston.housing@dhhs.vic.gov.au>; Clare.Lawson@launchhousing.org.au <Clare.Lawson@launchhousing.org.au>; Consular Paris <consular.paris@dfat.gov.au>; principalregistry@supcourt.vic.gov.au <principalregistry@supcourt.vic.gov.au>; commercial.registry@countycourt.vic.gov.au <commercial.registry@countycourt.vic.gov.au>; sanja.biondic@justice.vic.gov.au <sanja.biondic@justice.vic.gov.au>; commonlaw.registry@countycourt.vic.gov.au <commonlaw.registry@countycourt.vic.gov.au>; HaveYourSay <haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk>; info@ccrc.gov.uk <info@ccrc.gov.uk>; sr-torture@ohchr.org <sr-torture@ohchr.org>; Adele Teh <adele.teh@humanrights.gov.au>; Partnerships Addressing Disadvantage (DTF) <pads@dtf.vic.gov.au>; childprotectionsubpoenaunit@health.vic.gov.au <childprotectionsubpoenaunit@health.vic.gov.au>; crogers@hcourt.gov.au <crogers@hcourt.gov.au>; lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au <lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au>; njc@courts.vic.gov.au <njc@courts.vic.gov.au>; admin@courtnetwork.com.au <admin@courtnetwork.com.au>; info@ibac.vic.gov.au <info@ibac.vic.gov.au>; media@ibac.vic.gov.au <media@ibac.vic.gov.au>; Supreme Court-Redcrest <redcrest@supcourt.vic.gov.au>; admin@adopteerightsaustralia.org.au <admin@adopteerightsaustralia.org.au>; senator.wong@aph.gov.au <senator.wong@aph.gov.au>; danny.pearson@parliament.vic.gov.au <danny.pearson@parliament.vic.gov.au>; enquiries@fls.org.au <enquiries@fls.org.au>; Amanda.Rishworth.MP@aph.gov.au <Amanda.Rishworth.MP@aph.gov.au>; Minister.Rishworth@DSS.gov.au <Minister.Rishworth@DSS.gov.au>; minister.shorten@dss.gov.au <minister.shorten@dss.gov.au>; bill.shorten.mp@aph.gov.au <bill.shorten.mp@aph.gov.au>; julie.collins.mp@aph.gov.au <julie.collins.mp@aph.gov.au>; Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au <Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au>; vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au <vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au>; FL General Enquiries <enquiries@fcfcoa.gov.au>; communications@hr4a.com.au <communications@hr4a.com.au>; info@rk.com.au <info@rk.com.au>; foleys@foleys.com.au <foleys@foleys.com.au>; admin@untoday.org <admin@untoday.org>; jchr@parliament.uk <jchr@parliament.uk>; Customer Help <customer.help@theguardian.com>; tips@7news.com.au <tips@7news.com.au>; casei@lancaster.ac.uk <casei@lancaster.ac.uk>; gth25@cam.ac.uk <gth25@cam.ac.uk>; gth25@cam.ac.uk <gth25@cam.ac.uk>; subpoena-service-smu@police.vic.gov.au <subpoena-service-smu@police.vic.gov.au>; VP WEBSITE-MGR <vpwebsite-mgr@police.vic.gov.au>; info@global-counsel.com <info@global-counsel.com>; dataprotection@hja.net <dataprotection@hja.net>; cblanden@vicbar.com.au <cblanden@vicbar.com.au>; Support <support@apm.net.au>; a.downer@kcl.ac.uk <a.downer@kcl.ac.uk>; ces74@cam.ac.uk <ces74@cam.ac.uk>; boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>; poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.eu <poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.eu>; media@pmc.gov.au <media@pmc.gov.au>
Re Saur: I would be in my own… home in Breizh, France between 24th & 30th August 2022 but for the fact Australian politicians are unlawfully stopping me doing that because draconian adoption legislation is really only purely… political.
____________________________
SAUR : Relève de votre compteur d’eau
Translate message to: English | Never translate from: French
S
SAUR <contact@infos.saurclient.fr>
To:
- You
Wed 17/08/2022 17:08
| SAUR VOUS SIMPLIFIE LA VIE ! Vous recevez cet email car vous êtes un client SAUR. |
| Pour être sûr de recevoir nos emails, ajoutez notre adresse d’envoi à votre carnet d’adresses Si vous n’arrivez pas à lire cet email, consultez la version en ligne. Client : BARBARA TUCKER XXXXXXXXXX |
I did not actually ‘waive’ my right to privacy which was illegally breached when the British politicians and BBC (along with New Scotland Yard) illegally published my adopted identity with false information using the now defunct ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK on Mothers Day 2006 which we can presume was a calculated act on the part of politicians.
The draconian adoption legislation is a wholly… political, instead of legal ‘process’ that no-one who is labeled adopted as a vulnerable child should ever have found ourselves subjected to, and has always been unlawful for politicians to try and involve an adopted person in. My political ‘choices’ should not be limited to the fact I am adopted but they are, because draconian adoption legislation is a purely… political act. The politicians only interest is in those who may vote for them, as was proved with the Howard, Rudd and Gillard political administrations while I was in Parliament Square, Central London.
** What is abundantly clear is that I should never have needed to be in Australia or have the permission of Australian politicians and courts to be free from draconian adoption legislation**
The politicization of care arrangements for vulnerable children separated from our own families as children, that states call ‘adoption’ does not even responsibly prepare, encourage, facilitate, acknowledge or celebrate an adopted person becoming an adult. The fact an adopted person becomes an adult which is supposed to be a time of making our own adult decisions is completely overlooked with regard to adoption that is such a central determinant imposed on our lives that continues.
I reasonably believe that at the very least the only true legal situation is everyone labelled adopted as a vulnerable child by governments… automatically ages out of the state run care arrangements as adults, just like anyone in state care who was not labeled adopted. My own parents automatically aged out of now defunct legislation used against them that led to my all too hasty adoption that I was always perversely told I could not similarly automatically age out of at any time, including adulthood. The legal differences between someone who automatically ages out of care arrangements at adulthood because it is recognized people should be able to make their own decisions as adults, and someone trapped as an adult by the cumulative adverse affects of draconian adoption legislation that does not actually legally and properly acknowledge an adopted person is ever an adult, legally entitled to make our own adult decisions, could not be more different. An adopted person who entirely naturally refuses to comply with draconian adoption legislation is treated as an aberration and worse, by a distant political class who legislated the miscarriage of justice, using a mostly faceless bureaucracy.
It is not legally possible for a state to discriminate against and effectively impose what amounts to collective punishment without law on, at any given time, an essentially random cohort of people labelled adopted as vulnerable children while separated from our own families. There are no legal or rational grounds that mean an adult who was adopted by adult strangers as a child would need to comply with what is draconian adoption legislation as an adult. It would be for an adult who was adopted by adult strangers as a vulnerable child and the adults who adopted the person to separately pay money to and apply to a court for a court order if they thought they wanted or needed one for any legal reason. The highly unusual and extraordinary court orders imposed on someone labeled adopted as a vulnerable child that an adopted person is not even routinely provided with our own copy of by courts or anyone else, could not possibly continue to be legally valid when the adopted person is an adult because we are obviously legally entitled to make our own adult decisions just like anyone else who is not adopted. The legally anomalous situation of adoption highlights why it is clearly only legally possible to instead have legally reviewable care arrangements vulnerable children automatically age out of at adulthood.
It is absolutely unlawful to try and impose onerous legal proceedings on an adopted person who refuses to comply with draconian adoption as an adult, because I should have automatically aged out of draconian adoption legislation as an adult. The only possible reason the state unlawfully… continues to try and impose adoption on an adult is because of the… politicization of adoption. The obvious problem with draconian adoption legislation is that politicians have no legal standing (locus standii) in the first place (let alone that continues into the private citizen’s adulthood) to secondly completely politicize care arrangements for vulnerable minors by labelling it adoption, when in far too many cases the closer legal description is child trafficking that it is then claimed can continue without the agreement of an adopted person into adulthood. The term ‘forced adoption’ is not recognized by courts precisely because that is child trafficking even if it is facilitated by a state. The entire absence in draconian adoption legislation, that conflicts with so much other legislation, and is absent any due process for an adopted person is how the adopted person becomes a commodity.
It is at the very least ‘maladministration’ for politicians to mislead adopted people that we need to pay money to and have the permission of courts to for example use our own identity and have a passport in our own identity when people who are not labelled adopted do not have to go through anything so onerous to have a passport in their own identity. The refusal of Australian politicians to provide me with an Australian passport unless I comply with draconian adoption legislation to their satisfaction is not only absolutely unlawful but has serious adverse consequences for me that are entirely disproportionate. It is unlawful that Australian politicians sought to stop me living in my own home in Breizh, France, and intentionally make me homeless in Australia while when challenged over this then illegally sought to hide what is going on with politicians illegally using public office to falsely generate government records behind my back and without my knowledge, that claim I “own property in Australia” that I only discovered by chance on 20th May 2022, politicians had been doing since 20th November 2020 AFTER they could not explain how I came to be illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne, Australia in August 2020.
The only reason I did not personally apply for a French passport before, during or after the British referendum on leaving the European Union while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France (there have been Bugats in the French, Spanish and Italian border and mountain regions for many centuries) is because the legal situation relating to various governments use of draconian adoption legislation is and was already too confusing, let alone when combined with the fact nationalities and citizenships have routinely been changed through adoption without being properly recorded by states, that can also cause problems with nationalities and citizenships an adopted person can also acquire through other relationships such as marriage and having our own families. I was married in New Zealand and divorced in the UK, (and did not need to return to New Zealand to get divorced) so I know it is far easier to get married in one country and divorced in another than it is to try and extricate oneself from draconian adoption legislation that also affects my own family too. I never applied for a New Zealand passport for pretty much the same reason, that I was not free as an adult to able to make my own decisions free from being labelled ‘adopted’. I always find it too confusing in among much that is confusing that my own Italian Australian identity was changed to British and Australian. The reason the British and Australian politicians were falling over each other to stop the civil jury lawsuits and nullification that arose over ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation on Mothers Day 2006 in the UK, is because of the very obvious connection to civil jury… nullification of draconian adoption legislation too because I am adopted. So I was illegally maliciously targeted and penalized over my lawsuits too, simply because I am adopted. The politicians knew the ECHR could only have referred my case back to a civil jury and nullification of legislation. There is the peace and harmony of the rule of law, and then there is draconian adoption legislation which contradicts itself in so much other legislation.
It was of course always way beyond presumptuous of anyone to purport they could legislate to force someone to call adult strangers ‘parents’ and wherever it suited politicians, force an adopted person to permanently forgo our own identities and cultural heritage, and as if that is not all bad enough that we must also permanently surrender our own normal adult decision making processes, so that draconian adoption legislation can continue to be used against us as adults.
I obviously most certainly did not go to Breizh in France for any political reasons, despite my having been in Parliament Square, Central London, but instead because of course I do also have a genuine interest in my own Mediterranean cultural heritage too. Of course I love my own… home in my nature lovers paradise in Breizh, France.
Suffice to say the real life consequences of the continuing use of draconian adoption legislation have had a serious, prolonged and ongoing adverse impact on my physical health in particular, where I am in addition also unlawfully being prevented from even having an opportunity to recover in the peace of my own home in Breizh, France, and why ? Solely because draconian adoption legislation is… political.
There are serious legal questions as to why it was not possible for me to have a free replacement Australian passport in my own identity and be free from draconian adoption legislation, while I was still living in my own home in Breizh, France. It follows it would have therefore been possible for me to apply for a French passport too, in my own identity before, during or after Brexit.
The only possible fair outcome I can see, in the absence of an International Civil Court which would have meant this would never have happened, is for people labelled adopted by draconian adoption legislation to make our own choices about our identities, including nationalities and citizenships, free from any political or other influence, that also protects our own families. Of course there should be basic and exemplary compensation available, because politicians did reasonably know a vulnerable child was legally entitled to… automatically age out of care arrangements at adulthood, so it was only for those who wanted anything else they could have called whatever they like, to pay money to and go to courts instead.
This statement is true.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 