Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: the nurses & doctors treatment of my cancer made medical sense & my absolute legal right as someone labelled adopted by others, for me to have my witness statement renouncing prolonged stress & distress of political threats, intimidation, bullying & physical assaults incl to now pressure me to sign over my home in Breizh, France, to the French or Victorian governments, over draconian adoption legislation that has… never made any sense, must be included in my ‘adoption’ court record (Piers Doggart, Johnson & Chechen Kadyrov) (06.10.2022)
My name is Donna and that is my peaceful freedom of expression.
The reality is people who support draconian adoption legislation support any kind of abuse of vulnerable children anywhere, because draconian adoption legislation can essentially be used to traffic a vulnerable child pretty much anywhere in the world.
It is abusive that politicians just recklessly changed my identity. So I was… lied to about being mixed race and which mixed race that is, so I could not enjoy being my own mixed race, because that is frowned upon, by politicians, who do not ‘allow’ that, and lied to about my cultural heritage so I am not and was not ‘allowed’ by politicians, to be Italian either. I was lied to about my family, because for some unknown reason I had to be raised completely separately from my own little sister who died and had the same parents.
There is a far from legal, anomalous situation with regard to adoption, that is attributable to the complete absence… at any time, from an adoption court record, of a signed witness statement from someone labelled adopted by others, that can legally include renouncing draconian adoption legislation.
The abuse of someone labelled adopted by adult strangers as a vulnerable child, can only happen because the politicians are illegally stopping, at any time, a signed witness statement from someone labelled adopted by others, that can include renouncing draconian adoption legislation, being put on a court record in an adoption case.
I cannot think of any legal grounds that mean that someone like myself, who was adopted in Australia, and has lived overseas most of my life, should ever have needed to leave my own home in Breizh France and return to Australia to effectively try and renounce the prolonged stress and distress caused by draconian adoption legislation.
_________
It was on 10th September 2022, that I realized I could not manage my cancer.
I first rang the hospital where I was by then, a cancer patient, and was where I had been released from a few days earlier and they told me to immediately call an ambulance to come into the hospital but even… speaking becomes an exertion, when you are and have been rapidly losing blood and have anaemia and your haemoglobin is going south fast, so breathing and movement is an effort:
I suddenly realized I couldn’t wait for an ambulance, because I felt I was beginning to lose consciousness, so someone urgently called for a taxi and helped me get to the taxi, because I was struggling to breathe and walk. I think it was actually too much of an exertion by then to even make the few phone calls.
I remember being treated in the emergency department, before I was admitted to the ward, and a doctor came and had a serious conversation with me about an option if they could not stabilize the situation, and another doctor saying they thought some of the cancerous tumour had broken off, but it is pretty much all a haze, because there had just been too much going on, too quickly.
I now know I can’t manage being adopted either because being adopted literally makes me physically ill. I can identify that sick feeling I have every day is called adoption. It is very serious too. There is too much stress and distress.
______
The nurses and doctors in hospital treated me very well when I had reached an obvious point where I simply could not manage my cancer, and so the medical team arranged urgent surgery as best they could. I said I felt uncomfortable with a fuss (since I was a small child, I always had to look after myself) and they said sometimes there has to be a fuss, and this is one of those times. I found that meant was able to unload some of the personal burden of having cancer with the nurses taking care of me, and that I could do that, because the nurses always explained what they were doing that always made medical sense.
I remember when the British government illegally used someone called Piers Doggart who was with what is called the Treasury Solicitor to try and maliciously continue to prosecute some cases against me he lost at Southwark Crown Court in December 2007 related to the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation we forced off the statute books. That experience of state violence hiding behind the cover of legislation was a training ground of sorts. I complained it was unfair the government had Piers Doggart from the Treasury Solicitor representing them while I had no legal representation. His manipulative excuse was why should I worry, because I always “won” cases (when I tried to) This hid the serious and escalating state violence behind cases as the government became increasingly determined to protect their legislation rather than civilians or the peace and harmony of the rule of law. The fact I might ‘win’ in a court did not change that state violence had… already been illegally used against me, and would again be used.
It wasn’t appropriate that Mr Doggart later helped stage manage an undercover Inquiry (where surely it is clear it is better to actually sue those involved) because one of the cases he lost against me in December 2007 involved the government having already admitted IN COURT, to illegally using Special Branch.
It was obviously illegal for the government to use Special Branch etc to try and stop the civil jury nullification of… legislation.
The various subsequent Inquiries including Leveson went around the fact of the robber media barons involvement too, which was why the Daily Mail had illegally door-stopped me in a lift leaving the High Court in 2010. Our own case inevitably showed there is more of a… direct connection between politicians, robber media barons and Special Branch et al. Indeed by the time Mr Doggart was turning up at Southwark Crown Court in December 2007, the Palaces of Westminster was also illegally refusing to identify a male assailant who violently punched me in the head. The politicians violence did not make sense.
I don’t believe Mr Doggart ever congratulated me/us on forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, but then again neither did any of the robber media barons who purport to be such advocates of free speech.
The British government could be sure no other… government was going to support our forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, and indeed the British government is not known for supporting civilians opposing any similar legislation in other countries including Europe. I did oppose the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, when they tried to introduce similar legislation in Egypt, on the Mediterranean, before we had forced it off the statute books in the UK.
When the Chechen Kadyrov says he will send his young sons, as minors, and some of whom are adopted, to war, it is only a sad reminder, of lost childhoods, because too many adopted people like myself are handed over to and ‘raised’ by the highest echelons of military and intelligence.
I am a little sceptical when politicians in for example the UK say they are opposed to the Chechen Kadyrov because people who support draconian adoption legislation know that it can in practice mean a vulnerable child ending up anywhere in the world, not forgetting the cult of celebrity in Hollywood who are not adopted, promoting draconian adoption legislation too.
Then there are those politicians like Johnson (the former British PM) who while a journalist and Mayor of London was… illegally given tax payer funded legal representation to try and hide he was illegally refusing to hand over the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me. Johnson had tax payer funded legal representation from Eversheds, who now employ Doggart too. The politicians knew they could never legally go around my own High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008, shortly after Mr Doggart lost at Southwark Crown Court. I ‘won’ three consecutive cases at Southwark Crown Court in December 2007, including the ‘decisive’ legal ‘victory’ on 13th December 2007 when the former Labour PM Brown was late signing the Lisbon Treaty. We now know Britain had included Article 50 in the Treaty of Lisbon because politicians clearly intended to leave the EU because politicians deliberately blocked anyone who could be… authentic opposition, while talking up the Farage-a-drama etc. It is arguable/possible politicians intended to leave the EU because it was legally difficult to keep having such an undemocratic House of Lords within the EU, but if the House of Lords was abolished then questions would naturally follow about the even wider inequality of monarchy, which obviously extends far beyond the UK or even the British far from Commonwealth.
There is bad legislation in both monarchies and republics.
The draconian adoption legislation is and has always been a wholly unreasonable lose, lose for me, because if I went along with it, it harms me, and if I refuse to go along with being harmed I am arbitrarily punished because draconian adoption legislation is all about whatever suits politicians, instead of a random cohort of people from all around the world labelled adopted as vulnerable children.
The politicians never want to know about the very many legal problems unnecessarily caused by draconian adoption legislation because politicians are only ever trying to exploit vulnerable children who cannot vote who are handed over to adult strangers who can vote. This means a random cohort of vulnerable children are being used by politicians to buy votes according to politicians various personal and political causes. The label of adoption is used in completely different ways by politicians, depending on whatever their personal or party political flavour of prejudice and bigotry happens to be that relegates the person labelled adopted to being a mere bystander who is told we never have a right to complain about or stop the abuse being imposed on us, as either children or adults.
The abuse of someone labelled adopted by adult strangers as a vulnerable child, can only happen because the politicians are illegally stopping a signed witness statement from someone labelled adopted by others, renouncing draconian adoption legislation, being put on a court record in an adoption case.
The politicians have clearly breached the public trust placed in them with draconian adoption legislation because they only have legal authority for make the least intrusive state interference possible which means vulnerable children automatically age out of care arrangements at the latest, at adulthood. It is not legally possible for an arbitrary court order premised on care arrangements for a minor, to continue for a random cohort into adulthood and forever. The fact some may want that to happen does not mean it can be imposed on anyone, and indeed it is those who may want something they call adoption, to continue into adulthood to pay money to and go to court to justify that for themselves. The draconian adoption legislation is political, and could have no place in any court, including a family law court.
I had a succession of different indicators in 2019 and 2020, with a monocyte-count white cell differentiation, RCC, Hb, HCT, ESR, and amalyse that were all respectively going in the wrong direction that related to my with autoimmune illnesses like pancreatitis and rheumatoid arthritis. However they can also be indicators of cancer elsewhere too, that in my own case, then crept up on me before I was diagnosed in August 2022 when what turned out to be a 9cm cancerous tumour essentially overtly manifested itself.
The doctors and nurses who treated me in hospital before and when I had my operation to remove the cancerous tumour always explained as much as was possible to me, and what they said made sense, including medical sense. This contrasts completely with the prolonged stress and distress caused to me by draconian adoption legislation which does not make and has never made any sense because it harms me if I go along with it, or punishes me if I refuse to go along with it. There is no proper due process.
The politicians are essentially pressuring me to just sign over my home to the French or Victorian government because I now know after having been caused so much stress and distress that however anyone looks at it, caused my cancer, that in practical terms, my own home that I do really love, is nevertheless worthless if politicians will not let me live in my own home with my own identity that I could never have to pay money to and justify to anyone else incl. a court for me to do just because politicians… labelled me adopted. It is completely unnatural and harms me, to be threatened, intimidated, bullied, physically assaulted and punished for no other reason than I do not want to live with an assumed identity based completely on other people’s lies, that was only ever imposed on me to suit politicians, and regardless of how unscrupulous too many politicians can all too often be.
My distrust and abhorrence of adoption has not really changed since I was a small child, and the daily grind of the abuse of draconian adoption legislation does not age well, and does literally make me physically ill.
It simply is not legally possible for politicians to claim they or courts, can pick and choose if someone labelled adopted by others can put our own witness statement on the adoption court record.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 