Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia: Re: My cancer operation & absolute legal right to have my own signed witness statement on court record renouncing draconian adoption legislation & claiming compensation, because it is illegal to use draconian adoption legislation to arbitrarily threaten, bully, intimidate & assault some-one labelled adopted by others (ie: My High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 predates later Murdoch, Browder & Trump et al adoption election imbroglio that ignores… there are… global legal problems with draconian adoption legislation) (03.10.2022)
I am mixed race, which is in truth very common, in Australia. Yet politicians on all supposed ‘sides’ in an Australia who did a political volte face from being a whites only country, trying to be more British than the British, to a supposed multicultural nirvana, still reject the notion of mixed race within their supposed multicultural spectrum. The politicians version of multiculturalism consists of people of different races, not people being of mixed race. This failure to recognise a true and wider diversity seems to be completely attributable to politicians own personal choice to sign up to a very narrow nationalist narrative, that is at best an unnecessarily inflexible interpretation of a Constitution that is past its own use by date anyway.
It just so happens that I am also adopted, and stood for peaceful freedom of expression for everyone in Parliament Square, Central London. The British and Australian politicians obviously also had an interest in trying to shift any narrative about adoption or which mixed race that might involve, well away from Parliament Square, Central London.
The problem with draconian adoption legislation is not just in the State of Victoria or Australia.
There is no legal way politicians can go ‘around’ my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006.
The Australian politicians are legally obliged to record my cancer diagnosis and resulting major operation, that I understandably say is caused by the prolonged unnecessary… stress and distress of draconian adoption legislation, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me. The earlier hospital records from 2019 and 2020, show that prior to my having cancer in 2022, I already had autoimmune pancreatitis and rheumatoid arthritis etc which regularly flared up, and meant the autoimmune disorder helped disguise what on the face of it is at this time, not known to be a directly related cancer. I am not personally convinced that bullying, threatening, intimidating and physically assaulting me while I have cancer or before or after a major operation is good for my health.
I find it quite shocking that it was only being in hospital being treated for cancer !! where doctors and nurses call me Donna, because I stated in my Advanced Care Directive that I prefer and find it easier and less stressful to be called by my real name of Donna that I found some… respite from the daily grind that is abusive draconian legislation. The draconian adoption legislation can after all be arbitrarily used to threaten intimidate, bully and physically assault an adopted person who doesn’t willingly go along with it because of the physical and emotional harm it causes. The lived experience of someone who is labelled adopted by adult strangers as a vulnerable child and doesn’t go along with that (there is no crime committed by an adopted person who refuses to agree to adoption) is obviously quite different from the experience of either an adult biological parent or an adult who poses as a parent.
Of course, one of the very many problems with draconian adoption legislation has always been that minorities including mixed race can also be illegally excluded by unscrupulous politicians.
The politicians are after all essentially buying votes, by exploiting vulnerable children who cannot vote who are handed over to adults who can vote or are for example made Supreme Court Judges in for example the United States.
There is no judge who has the legal right to stop an adopted person from putting our own witness statement renouncing draconian adoption legislation on the court record.
The only possible reason the politicians and courts are so disrespectful to someone labelled adopted because it is disrespectful for courts to not hand over adoption court orders to adopted people even and particularly when we become adults is because they know draconian adoption legislation is not valid.
Indeed a court order could only be valid if and when a court give a copy of the court order to the person who is the subject of a court order which politicians always knew courts had to do at the latest when a person labelled adopted as a vulnerable child became an adult, so the politicians have always known draconian adoption legislation was not valid.
The word adopted is widely used, often completely incorrectly to include all sorts of transfers of children between adults, who are usually all unknown to the vulnerable child, but is also used as a term to describe a known family member, who claims some sort of responsibility when adults divorce or remarry, that is clearly completely different from adult strangers adoptions of vulnerable children. It is probably only the use of adult adoption whereby an adult has knowledge of and agrees to some sort of financial compensation in return for agreeing to be named as a successor to someone who is really a stranger that could possibly only really be called adoption.
A government only has legal standing for the least intrusive interference which is care arrangements vulnerable children automatically age out of at the latest at adulthood.
The fact an old boys club of global media barons who all happen to be male and used to a tradition of male inheritance possibly explains much aberrant thinking.
It is obviously absolutely unlawful for politicians to prevent someone labelled adopted by others from putting our own witness statement on the court record which would not be an unusual practice in any other case including cases involving family law where children are often also asked and have their own views recorded.
The hidden discrimination in draconian adoption legislation that politicians try to normalize despite it being so unnatural, is quite extraordinary/
The fact politicians, police and courts have been physically trying to stop me as an adopted person putting my witness statement on the court record is obviously absolutely unlawful.
Most people would not seriously think that my adopted brother who btw died of cancer, and I, were biologically related:
The Department of Justice in Victoria is legally obliged to stop falsely claiming they respect the privacy of adopted people because nothing could be further from the truth, and that is not just with regard to the use of sixth schedule birth certificates. The fact is politicians and their media sponsors pay for example Australian actors living in the United States who are not adopted (ie: the cult of celebrity) to publicly disclose the identities of minors they claim are adopted.
It is clearly unreasonable (and entirely different from for example a divorce) for politicians to claim someone adopted in for example the State of Victoria, Australia who lives overseas, must a) return to Australia, and b) i) pay money to and ii) have the permission of a iii) court that never provided them with a copy of the adoption court order, to c) be free from adoption in a way that at best suits politicians, while d) draconian adoption legislation can be used to arbitrarily threaten, intimidate, bully and punish an adopted person who rejects adoption.
There are too many unscrupulous politicians profiting from selling draconian adoption legislation.
The BBC & New Scotland Yard lied about me, in what was always actually agreed on that day was only a discussion over… my lawsuit, and the BBC et al never even apologized, while the lie exponentially grew bigger and bigger:
** The former British PM Johnson illegally used and exploited the fact I am adopted to… illegally obtain free publicly funded legal representation at the State Opening in the UK on 25th May 2010 because…. that was the only way Johnson could remain Mayor of London.
Johnson had to have me unlawfully arrested, and then bring a malicious prosecution in the High Court, before I was released from a Magistrates Court, and went to the High Court…. first, so he could illegally try to overtake my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 and the fact he was by then illegally refusing to hand over the CCTV of the premeditated torture and attempted murder of me that he orchestrated.
The old boys club of global media barons in Westminster publicly said in August 2008 that they wanted me (unlawfully) arrested (although the Daily Mail Legal Department was silent on the legal grounds) even before Murdoch published the ostensibly Tory ‘fatwa’ against Brian (that turned out to be by extension against myself too) in July 2009, (that was really intended to be a cross party green light for Johnson who was boss of top cops while a journalist and Mayor of London) so there was undeniably a political witch-hunt. However global media barons who are all male didn’t ever dare publish what I publicly said about them collectively, along with the old boys club of politicians et al, because they knew that at the very least, most women would fall about laughing… at them, along with quite a few men doing the same.
The BBC et al (who had illegally published my adopted name along with false information on Mothers Day 2006) edited out the real headlines on 25th May 2010 including the fact the government relied on a complainant they illegally refused to identify or provide a witness statement from who was a Democracy Village agent provocateur who only came forward after I was unlawfully arrested and had pointed out the inconvenient fact the government did not have a complainant, who the Mayor of London never prosecuted when he illegally tried to join Brian and myself with his own fake ‘Democracy Village’ campaign (that part of the deceit on 25th May 2010 is all shown when the governments footage and our own footage the government did not know was still recording when I was unlawfully arrested, is put together)
Brian’s supposed human rights lawyers incredibly asked me if I could wear a different t-shirt in… court !! rather than my “You make me sick” t-shirt I was wearing when I was unlawfully arrested, which the public immediately understood accurately reflected the situation, generally. The robber media barons all sent their photographers down to ask me for their souvenir photo of that t-shirt as soon as I was released because I had naturally told photographers who typically appeared from no-where, to get out of my face when I was unlawfully arrested. This was after all the same Westminster who had stolen my pink sequinned banner that said “I am not the Serious Organised Criminal” with regard to the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation we forced off the statute books, and had unlawfully arrested me because I had a pink sequinned banner that said “Peace, Love & Justice For All” !!
The Adoption Court Order on 25th May 2010
The BBC… published my pointing out the government did not have a court order which is essentially true not just about what was going on that day at the State Opening in 2010, but is true about the adoption court order too because the Australian politicians and courts (along with the British courts) illegally do not give adoption court orders to the person labelled adopted as a vulnerable child who must automatically age out of care arrangements made by the state at the latest as an adult.
No-one ever produced anything claiming to be an adoption court order while I was living overseas either:
My High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 is as valid in renouncing draconian adoption legislation in the UK or the State of Victoria in Australia. (Indeed there are even a number of public officials who worked in Westminster at that time who now work for the Victorian State government and vice versa etc)
(The Blair administration bizarrely claimed Labour could transfer public land they called the ‘gardens’ part of Parliament Square, Central London to the monarchy which was never part of any Labour party manifesto, while Corbyn and Benn never criticised what Livingstone did to Brian and myself while he was Mayor of London, so there was no real difference among Tory or Labour politicians)
The British and Australian politicians obviously had an interest in trying to … shift any narrative about adoption away from Parliament Square, Central London. There is obviously no dispute the Russian government publicly supported Johnson at that time, along with Johnson’s fake ‘Democracy Village’.
The main problem with a subsequent Browder narrative is that in practice it is no different from either a United States or Russian narrative about adoption because both countries have openly sold vulnerable children to the highest bidder while using the label of adoption that most of the rest of us would call child trafficking. What I would call child trafficking because the United States say selling vulnerable children for money is legal, is openly practiced in the United States along with members of the cult of celebrity who are not adopted and mostly Murdoch sycophants, promoting adoption in return for free publicity, by grandstanding at the UN.
The all to typical ‘journalists’ obfuscation is clearly trying to sidestep both the fact that a) what is often called/passed off as adoption is a global multi-billion dollar … industry (all about using… money to commodify vulnerable children) where vulnerable children are literally sold to the highest bidder (in the name of ‘free markets’ and all that) and that the legal problems with draconian adoption legislation are… global:
In a legal sense, Browder is seriously inconsistent, in many respects, because he does not have a problem with vulnerable children… anywhere being sold to the highest bidder in the global marketplace., when it is passed off as something called adoption. The fact an adopted person like myself, finds Browder so deeply offensive while he is clearly trying to distort and hijack the adoption narrative which is very common, does not have to have anything to do with the… Russian government, and distracts from such widespread use… globally of draconian adoption legislation.
I am personally critical of the use of draconian adoption legislation… in any country.
The supposed political imbroglio over adoption between the United States and Russia at an election that was falsely attributed to the Magintsky Act is another example of trying to… shift the narrative away from any adverse lived experience of any adopted person to that of politicians and their cult of celebrity anywhere.
There is in my own case, a reasonable suspicion that in all the true circumstances, the Russian government knew I was adopted when I was in Parliament Square, Central London and they obviously did not ever support Brian or myself.
The long standing legal problems with draconian adoption legislation are not limited to either the United States or Russia, but are a far more global issue involving over 100 countries and the infamous Hague Adoption Convention which is widely derided as solely political.
The reality is the existence of or repeal of the Magintsky Act does not change the absolute legal right of an adopted person to put our own witness statement on the court record in our own cases, renouncing draconian adoption legislation.
We all know the likes of the Murdoch family was more bothered about their own concept of the reputation of the matriarch and dame in their family, than any vulnerable children labelled adopted, anywhere.
The politicians in the State of Victoria are immediately legally liable for compensation including the cost of stable housing in Australia because a) the politicians never made a reasonable process for someone to renounce draconian adoption legislation while living overseas, in our own homes and b) someone adopted in Australia who lived overseas because of draconian adoption legislation, should be able to have somewhere stable to live in Australia too, at no further cost to ourselves, and without being financially penalised because otherwise politicians are using draconian adoption legislation to also literally… rob us of our homes in other countries too, which I am honest I had not fully considered until I had cancer.
If I could not live in my own home wherever it was, including overseas with my own identity, politicians are illegally using draconian adoption legislation to unfairly punish me and ultimately… rob me of my home unless I agree to live under an assumed identity, which must legally all attract compensation including at the very least stable social housing in Australia. It is unclear at this point in time, in my own situation if I will ever be able to live in my own home in Breizh, France again because of the serious damage to my health, that draconian adoption has caused, which is something that only… benefits unscrupulous politicians.
The last thing someone who us supposed to be recovering from a major cancer operation should have to worry about is the endless threats, bullying, and intimidation of draconian adoption legislation that is also trying to rob me of my home in Breizh, France.
It was unacceptable I was physically assaulted by one of Johnson’s thugs in Swanston street, in Melbourne. It obviously wasn’t surprising they would be in Melbourne, but it is not okay to keep… physically assaulting me !!!!!!
It really is far easier to be someone who supports a republic (I did sometimes get unlawfully arrested for that in the UK) than it is to be someone labelled adopted by adult strangers and to peacefully oppose that. The discriminatory…. label of adoption is incorrect and completely unnatural in every possible way.
I actually support an International Civil Court with the choice of juries as a practical way to try and help stop the most vulnerable children being exploited by adult strangers. This is because most politicians who are all beholden to robber media barons, will always put votes/elections before vulnerable children. This is not only unfair on vulnerable children, but leads to all sorts of foreseeable adverse consequences that could have been avoided.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat.
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
________________
P.S The politicians really didn’t help themselves when Johnson et al tried to use 16th January 2012 etc to try and cover up my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order etc before Murdoch’s henchman, a Lord Marlseford from the Times was hiding behind Hansard to try and disguise threatening the most serious violence possible (it was really outrageous)
Perhaps they were subsequently on 24th January 2012 discussing their mutual friend Lex Greenshill, below. In any event Rudd who was always politically really an extreme right wing Liberal Coalition apparachik in Australia (much like Blair and Starmer are really Tory) and typically a closet monarchist if you look at his wider business interests, did collect a $1.4 billion dollar brown envelope from the British Tories that he only got by illegally covering up I won HQ11X00563 in January 2011 (which did not involve the monarchy):
It’s obviously not a co-incidence that I was illegally denied legal representation in the High Court in the UK on 23rd June 2010 (neither Brian or I were connected with Johnson’s fake ‘Democracy Village, while Rudd and Gillard played revolving doors in Australia:
The politicians are always trying to purport they have ‘diplomatic immunity’ for… themselves that manifests itself for example with a succession of political zealots then inhabiting the role of an anything but neutral Ambassador at the Australian High Commission in London. Downer illegally tried to deny I am an Australian citizen when he was a Foreign Office Minister before sloping off to be an Ambassador hiding out in the Australian embassy in London, along with his other murky business interests while grandstanding at Kings College too. The latest Labour Federal government in Australia who basically consist of the unreconstructed left overs from the revolving doors of the Rudd and Gillard administrations are ‘curiously’ making a ‘Brexit’ trade agreement with the former errr… Australian Liberal Coalition PM Abbott (who told some massive whoppers about adoption in his time in the revolving doors of Liberal governments at that time too) because the British government have re-invented Abbott as their ‘trade adviser’ which you can bet purports to be about some kind of ‘diplomatic immunity’ or another for him. The thing is Johnson did not have ‘diplomatic immunity’ himself while he was a paid journalist and Mayor of London when he was also both a British and American citizen.
There was a tall tale and then some by Murdoch’s Time Law Reports etc below (it so happens the Murdoch matriarch and not so philanthropic dame was also involved in my adoption in Victoria, Australia, which would have inevitably come out in a civil jury lawsuit in either the UK or Australia etc which could not be construed as my ‘fault’ either) because it misses out… the part where the monarch did send along their lawyer who did actually speak to Brian and myself saying they would take us to court (which we assumed was about ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 because we did not know until 18th June 2010 the monarchy had actually tried to belatedly make an actual land claim in 2008 which they would only have done, because they must have known Blair’s legislation in 1999 which was put together by a Jeroen Weimar, who now works for the Victorian government, was a load of old cobblers) I simply dismissed (along with commenting on the type of headline the monarchy maliciously prosecuting us could attract) because I understandably did not reasonably believe royals incl. the latest King et al, could take civilians to court, including for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 which we forced off the statute books regardless of whether it was politicians passing it and/or a monarch giving royal assent before they subsequently tried to waffle on about an alleged trespass as a distraction from much:
Weimar moved on from the UK when there were alleged to be financial ‘discrepencies’ at SERCO in the UK.
The increasingly libelous Murdoch hyperbole about me in Parliament Square, expanded and particularly when they knew I had won HQ11X00563 in… January 2011 which covered me over Johnson too, and unlike the other case about Parliament Square, Central London, did not involve the monarchy.
Of course the latest Australian Labour Federal government weasel worded hyperbole about a Federal ‘anti-corruption commission’ in 2022, is nothing more than a political gimmick, not least since the bizarre legislation seriously lacks any credibility.
What is most incredible is that Australian politicians (and I personally believe it is illegal for politicians to try and deliberately mislead the public) refuse to even recognize that as a starting point…. corruption is actually supposed to be a… criminal offence !! that self evidently must be significantly,,, worse and far more serious if it is politicians who are being corrupt because that is not only a breach of the public trust placed in politicians, but politicians are using an entire state apparatus, so corruption committed by politicians using their public role must be exceptionally serious. Instead politicians are trying to publicly downgrade… political corruption to some kind of at most minor misdemeanor. The bad faith of politicians (the Victorian ‘Ibac’ could only be an example of a political/government front because it does not welcome and is not even open to the public, which makes a mockery of politicians ever intending or encouraging either any privacy for or whistle-blowing from members of the public who are actually the people most likely to say something) is demonstrated by politicians trying to legislate away from a default position of public hearings, when that is what they would/should face in an actual court. Perhaps state and federal politicians in the colonial half way house of Australia have been spoiled for too long, by being able to just conjure up endless royal commissions (into anything but of course the actual royals) as presumably a means for politicians to delay and ultimately try and avoid actual court proceedings, with…. juries. There has never been a… politician who likes a civil or criminal jury.
Donna Bugat 