Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: cancer and AEC email 27/10/2022 with my statutory declaration response confirming it is Australian politicians who are & have illegally been stopping me from voting including in 2019 election when I was living in my own… home in Breizh, France despite politicians knowing they are legally obliged to acknowledge my genuine… choice to not be labelled adopted & to renounce institution of adoption & draconian adoption legislation (ie: Lord Justice ‘Flasher’ Richards etc) (28.10.2022)
FAO AEC,
I have become accustomed to introducing myself as Donna (along with sometimes having to explain that it is only politicians who… force the adopted name to be used, and indeed no-one says I should be known by an adopted nomenclature instead)
I do not personally reasonably believe the AEC are independent of politicians, or care that politicians are and have been illegally stopping me from voting in state and federal elections in Australia, because the AEC doesn’t care that politicians… force the label of adoption, and the institution of adoption (that politicians claim means whatever they may want it to mean on any given day) and draconian adoption legislation on people like myself when we are vulnerable children, to buy votes.
My response to AEC email dated 27th October 2022 is a statutory declaration confirming Australian politicians are and have been illegally stopping me from voting in Australian elections, including in the federal 2019 election when I was living in my own… home in Breizh, France.
I would like to be able to vote.
For the avoidance of doubt, I most certainly do not see any point in voting for a/any politician who lacks the basic common decency and respect to actually speak with/acknowledge my legal right to make a genuine… choice, to not be labelled adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
I cannot personally work out what would be the point of voting for a politician who can’t even speak with someone they claim they want to vote for them ?
I could not even really have a… meaningful vote, without politicians acknowledging my legal right to not be labelled adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
The politicians (and robber media barons) do after all publicly grandstand about adoption without mentioning that in fact and law politicians arbitrarily… label someone as adopted while we are vulnerable children, while ignoring someone labelled adopted as a vulnerable child, has the right to have a genuine… choice to not be labelled adopted, and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation that in so doing does not break any known civil or criminal law, and must be acknowledged in writing (by email is fine) by politicians.
The true legal reality is it is politicians who are illegally stopping me from voting in state or federal elections in Australia because they (and the AEC reasonably know this) are legally obliged to recognise I have legally renounced the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation that is not a legitimate law of any land (I do after all actually have a High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008, and did win for example HQ11X00563 in the UK, despite some controversial claims attributed to royals about a GLA Act 1999 (that is not so different from the also controversial Treaty of Utrecht that a Mr Weimar who now works with the Victorian government in Australia claims he was involved in drafting)
(I did after all find myself at the centre of what the legal community consider to be the most controversial ‘land law’ case in our times, where Murdoch’s ‘law report’ in the Times is not actually recognized as an accurate and contemporaneous legal record of the facts and law, regarding what actually happened)
The case below was another ‘landmark’ and highly ‘controversial’ case about me in the UK because politicians were obviously illegally trying to avoid a… legally binding High Court ruling that Magistrates Courts must be legally obliged to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings which the Magistrates court, not us, was refusing to do:
(I refused to sit in the Contempt of Court case in the same High Court room with Lord Justice ‘Flasher’ Richards and be lectured by him, because he was also on trial in the same Magistrates Court in Westminster at that time, so he recused himself. It couldn’t be claimed however anyone looked at it, that Lord Justice Richards had been appointed to my Contempt of Court case by mere happenstance. Richards had also recently cleared a couple of murdering their adopted child, which was politically more about the government trying to distract from the fact it is primarily politicians who are more generally negligent over medical information for people labelled adopted)
The case below was politically convenient for the government, to distract from the fact politicians routinely illegally deny medical information to people on the basis of the label ‘adopted’:
I did conclusively prove politicians do not want anything approaching an accurate and contemporaneous record of my ‘adoption’ because they could not force me to agree what they did to me was a ‘civil’ matter when of course they could have sent me CCTV… by email where I should have had the master copy that… I could not be legally obliged to return to the perpetrator et al etc etc:
The politicians et al had already…. previously been found guilty in a court, of abducting me etc, when they illegally edited CCTV and destroyed independent video footage.
The… previous CCTV of me being abducted etc:
which was on the same date, but in different years which a jury would agree, means the CCTV the government later refused to hand over, shows what they had really intended to do on the same date, several years earlier:
I lived in my own… home in Breizh. France, within the peace and harmony of the rule of law (I guess in a similar way to some communities are legally recognised in ‘land law’ in for example the United States) The AEC are aware that state and federal politicians in Australia falsified their own government records to give the false impression I owned real estate in Australia to try and hide politicians have intentionally been trying to make me homeless in Australia while stopping me from having effective use of my own home in Breizh, France, including during a global pandemic. The politicians proved long before I had cancer, politicians would stop me living in my own home even if I had cancer, because politicians only care about buying votes.
The records show state and federal politicians in both Labour and Liberal etc political administrations falsified their own records (the Victorian state politicians version was different with the same intention to make me homeless in Australia and stop me having effective use of my own home in Breizh, France) because I do not in fact, own real estate in Australia:
The politicians who lie about the identity of someone labelled adopted, obviously do not care about falsifying other records relating to someone labelled adopted. I would not have known that state and federal politicians had falsified records claiming I own real estate in Australia, unless other people had told me, by happenstance. Neither state or federal agencies could identify the supposed real estate, politicians claimed I owned in Australia, so we know it wasn’t that politicians suddenly got a conscience, relating to their land grab of what they now call Crab Apple Close Reserve which is part of the land where I was raised as a small child, separately from my little sister with the same parents.
The politicians cannot deny that most people may naturally prefer to have a genuine… choice, rather than have the label of adoption, and the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation forced on them by politicians. So it is more likely than not, that the genuine… choice to not be labelled adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation would see the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation, at the very least, no longer used, even without it technically being nullified by a jury.
A responsible society should for example be encouraging people to celebrate becoming adults that involves making our own decisions which is not something being labelled adopted does. The politicians like Gove in the UK and Bach in Victoria, Australia (who claim to be adopted which may or may not be true because politicians do claim politicians can lie whenever they feel like it) cynically promote adopted people not having any genuine… choice !! because they are…. paid to do that by their political parties. The cult of celebrity who treat adopted minors they do publicly identify with the label adopted, in breach of any privacy, and as the latest must have accessories, in return for free publicity, certainly don’t promote adopted people having any genuine… choice to say no to being labelled adopted and no to the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
The political claims about revocation are a distraction and a trap that do not offer any genuine… choice to someone labelled adopted.
The fact politicians have illegally suppressed my genuine… choice to not be adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation for so long, that has recklessly caused me so much prolonged stress and distress in numerous countries, undeniably resulted in the cancer diagnosis, because I am after all human, just like anyone else.
I choose compensation including free universal healthcare, instead of being labelled adopted etc.
My own health is obviously more important to me, than any politician for goodness sakes.
I don’t care what politicians, or judges including those who have ‘adopted’ vulnerable children, may along with state broadcasters and the robber media barons say about the label adopted and the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation, so long as I have the genuine… choice that is acknowledged to say no to being labelled adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation. I do not commit any civil or criminal wrong with my genuine… choice to not be labelled adopted and to renounce the institution of adoption and draconian adoption legislation, so politicians are legally obliged to acknowledge my genuine… choice.
The true situation is the people who are illegally stopping me exercising my… choice to vote are in fact politicians.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 