Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: Cancer & I do not feel safe in Australia, so politicians legally obliged to recognise my… choice to renounce institution of adoption & draconian adoption legislation & keep citizenships that I do not break any civil or criminal law in doing, so am also entitled to compensation incl free universal health care instead because politicians knew there is a serious risk in denying access to genetic medical information etc while they have intentionally caused me prolonged stress & distress by trying to make me homeless in Australia & involuntarily abandon my own home in Breizh, France (ie: 4th October 2022 govt records) (26.10.2022)
A genuine… choice.
The politicians general ideology is buying votes, so they have traditionally used vulnerable children they label adopted who cannot vote, who are handed over to adults who can vote, to buy votes.
A reason that people like myself who are labelled adopted were not included in child abuse inquiries is because it would have immediately become obvious it isn’t possible to legally explain why a cohort of vulnerable children labelled adopted do not automatically age out of care arrangements at adulthood.
The fact some people may want to be adopted does not provide a legal basis to arbitrarily impose adoption on anyone else, including forever.
There is undeniably, currently, an absence of genuine… choice for people labelled adopted, by the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
The reality is a genuine… choice for people like myself labelled adopted by others will mean no longer being… forced to listen to or live according to the personal opinions of politicians or for example the robber media barons (who are all male which is odd when you think about it)
There are not actual legal grounds the CCTV was not sent to me… by email (& I could not be forced to agree it was civil):
I have completed statutory declarations that are not contested that explain why I was not safe in the UK when it is clear that the government could have easily sent me the CCTV… by email of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me over Mothers Day 2006, because I am adopted, and did not go along with adoption which is why I was sent way from Australia as a teenager.
This is journalist Johnson while also posing as Mayor of London, publicly grandstanding with a distraction, to illegally continue to try and cover up the refusal to hand over the CCTV etc and why:
There has similarly been nothing stopping the Department of Justice in Victoria sending me… by email a copy of the single set of whatever adoption records they claim to have in my Case 352, so there is no dispute what I have or do not have. The same is true of the County Court in Victoria who always claimed the person who had access to the courts records of the supposed adoption Court Order was never available either, which is presumably just a distraction from the fact that very unusually courts never actually issued a copy of the highly unusual court orders to the person labelled adopted who the court orders are about. This is presumably because it is a legal impossibility to claim the court could make orders that automatically continue into adulthood, including where a person is not even informed they are adopted, and to stop the court orders being challenged in another country. The only possible explanation for politicians who after all think nothing of falsifying adopted people’s identities, having also falsified state and federal government records (ie: refer 4th October 2022) to try and give the false impression I own real estate in Australia (which is not true) is because they knew they were intentionally making me homeless in Australia including during a global pandemic when they stopped me leaving the country and having effective use of my own home in Breizh, France, that politicians have not compensated me over.
The state and Federal politicians have always intentionally been trying to make me homeless in Australia etc because they could not explain why it was reasonable to force me to return to Australia to try and extricate myself from adoption, or why they refused to let me leave and have effective use of my own home in Breiazh, France during the global pandemic:
The politicians
The state and Federal politicians have had different versions of the same falsehood that I own real estate in Australia, where Services Australia have started to amend their records (when I discovered on 11th October 2022 their records were false too) although it is agreed the value/amount is not agreed.
A person would have to actually know the government held incorrect records to even be able to try and amend them (the state government refused to amend their version of my having real estate in Australia, they had created on 20th October 2020, that I only found out about by happenstance, in May 2022)
It is self evident it is unreasonable of politicians to force someone labelled adopted in Australia who lives overseas, to return to Australia and be homeless, because politicians claim someone labelled adopted needs to go through an onerous abuse of process in Australia involving first paying money to and having the permission of a court that has never even provided someone labelled adopted with a copy of the alleged adoption court order, to at the discretion of said court, ‘revoke’ the adoption court order. It is easier to get married in one country and divorced in another. The decision of someone labelled adopted to not recognise the institution of adoption or draconian adoption legislation is a personal… choice that someone labelled adopted at most would only need to notify a politician, and not a court of, to also receive universal free health care politicians are liable to provide because politicians know there are serious risks involved in the state legislating to deny genetic medical information to someone simply because we are labelled adopted.
The central legal point is that the only way there can ever really be any genuine… choice for me as someone labelled adopted as a vulnerable child by others, is for politicians to recognise that I can renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation and receive free universal health care, because not everyone who was adopted in Australia, lives in Australia, through no fault of our own.
There can be no fault attributed to someone labelled adopted who renounces the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation but keeps citizenships and receives free universal health care instead etc.
It was bad enough to be diagnosed with cancer without having to try and manage the life threatening dangerous haemorrhaging of the cancerous tumour which I obviously could not safely do myself. I had to try and save my own life on 10h September 2022, by trying to get back to the hospital I had only been released from several days earlier. A cancer can put a huge physical stress on a human body. I also have the rare medical complication of an unusual genetic abnormality located in the area where cancer was diagnosed that complicated and complicates any surgery or other treatment. (The genetic abnormality also means I should not participate in contact sports etc because I am at a greater risk of physical harm etc)
I am legally entitled to have the fact I have renounced the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation attached to my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 & for example HQ11X00563 & HQ12X03564 in the UK.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 