Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: I reasonably believe Premier, Health Commissioner & Attorney General’s Law Reform Commission legally obliged to confirm my genuine… choice to renounce legislative over-reach of adoption & draconian adoption legislation that has never had any connection to child protection or healthcare etc (the only reason politicians are trying to rebrand & increase quotas of people labelled adopted is solely to illegally try & avoid… compensation for existing adoptions where mine has led to premeditated torture & attempted murder of me in UK by disgraced British ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson before Victorian Premier Andrews falsified government records in Australia to dishonestly portray I own property in Australia to try & hide intentionally stopping me living in my own home in Breizh, France while trying to make me homeless in Australia incl when I was diagnosed with cancer in August 2022) (14.12.2022)
… choice…
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right to self-determination.
The only reason politicians have cynically sought to rebrand what they call adoption, while trying to once again increase the quota of vulnerable children they can label adopted is solely to try and avoid… compensation over any or all existing adoptions.
It’s always been a legal impossibility to explain why people who were as vulnerable children labelled adopted by the government were excluded from child abuse inquiries in Australia. It wasn’t just because politicians could not explain why children subjected to what politicians call adoption do not automatically age out of state imposed ‘out-of-home care’ at adulthood.
It is unlawful for the members of the Victorian Law Reform Commission who are appointed by the Victorian Attorney General to knowingly mislead the public, and in particular people who are labelled adopted, when the Commission is referring to what politicians call adoption.
The historical revisionism from Victorian Law Reform “posted on November 18th 2022“:
It’s impossible to understand how the Victorian Law Reform Commission could currently claim to be impartial or unbiased.
I personally advocate for the transformational change of an International Civil Court with the choice of juries, that most people would agree to.
(It is widely understood The Hague Adoption Convention which is incredibly disrespectful to adopted people, is not worth the paper it is written on that is stored in the Dutch Foreign Ministry)
Notes:
1. The British and Australian politicians knew on Mothers Day on 26th March 2006 that my having a civil jury and civil jury nullification of the political ban on civilians peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, would also result in a legislative ‘Matryoshka’ including the civil jury nullification of adoption and draconian adoption legislation too. There has never been a case of what politicians call adoption that is the best or only option.
2. It was frankly much easier for me to get a divorce in the UK without needing to return to New Zealand where I was married.
3. The single most obvious characteristic trait of Blair in the UK, was legislative over-reach
Blair & BBC et al illegally leaked my adopted name with false information (they falsely claimed what was on that day agreed was my civil jury lawsuit could be a criminal prosecution against me) that was actually designed to illegally stop… compensation for adoption too:
The predatory global adoption racket always preys on vulnerable children in war zones too.
I was not in an ivory tower when I helped ’reform’ the political ban on civilian peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, by forcing it off the statute books. I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned 48 times for no other reason than politicians legislative over-reach.
This was deliberate political persecution against me while I was peacefully standing in a public square:
The politicians et al were determined I was not ‘allowed’ to… speak for myself, which is the sad and sorry tale of adoption really.
5. The single most obvious characteristic trait of Blair was legislative over-reach.
Our small group were the only people who actually challenged the legislative over-reach of Blair et al (and were successful):
I explained to people that if they wanted to be abused by politicians legislative overreach that was their business that did not mean the legislative over-reach could be imposed on those of us who did not agree to such widespread political abuse.
Much of the Blair years legislation did not meet any civil, let alone criminal threshold.
This is another example of politicians cynically being opportunists because Miliband for example clearly did not recognise that someone labeled adopted was entitled to have a genuine… choice:
6. There was not a single politician, police officer, London human rights lawyer, prosecutor, judge or member of the monarchy who congratulated me on forcing the legislative over-reach of ss 132-135 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books in the UK.
7. The politicians et al are nevertheless legally obliged to confirm my genuine… choice to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
8. There is no space in my life for adoption or draconian adoption legislation.
It is not possible to go along with a mere revocation of adoption because that forces someone labelled adopted to pretend there is no problem with the draconian adoption legislation, or politicians claiming people labelled adopted need to pay money to and justify the decision to not be adopted to others, and have permission from a court who have never even provided a court copy of the adoption court order to the adopted person. The government tried to get around the sleight of hand of courts having illegally withheld court adoption orders from adopted people by inventing an Adoption Information Service who don’t follow basic disclosure requirements themselves, because politicians still illegally refuse to make it mandatory for peiple who are adopted to be informed by the courts of that fact. The draconian adoption legislation can clearly be illegally used to punish someone labelled adopted, along with family members, if the person labelled adopted refuses to go along with draconian adoption legislation even as an adult.
9. The fact the Victorian Premier and fmr Health Minister Andrews has undeniably sought to support not an Australian citizen, but the British MP, fmr PM and Mayor of London ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson’s torture and attempt to murder me to illegally try and stop my having a genuine… choice to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation explains exactly why Premier Andrews didn’t care about then falsifying government records in Australia to falsely claim I owned property in Australia to try and hide illegally stopping me living in my own home in Breizh, France while trying to make me homeless in Australia that resulted in my cancer diagnosis.
10. The Labour leftovers from the Rudd and Gillard political administrations in Australia still grandstanding in Canberra means nothing has changed in what is called Australian politics. It is disproportionate that a state Premier can stop an Australian citizen getting a passport in our own identity as an adult because of the legislative over-reach of draconian adoption legislation in a state. There is all sorts of political deceit that goes on behind closed doors with draconian adoption legislation, including switching and erasing nationalities and citizenships, as though some are not important.
It’s not difficult to work out that the former Labour PM Rudd horse-traded compensating people labeled adopted with a $1.4 billion brown envelope from the British Tories he laundered through a family member’s company that also meant he had to cover up I ‘won’ HQ11X00563 etc:
11. It is clearly unreasonable to force anyone/someone labelled adopted in Victoria, Australia by draconian adoption legislation who was forced to leave Australia as a teenager because I refused to go along with adoption, to after I was then exiled from the UK where I was forced to sell my home, then leave my own home in Breizh, France in July 2019 and return to Australia and be homeless while trying to extricate myself from what politicians call adoption that has only ever caused me prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm.
12. There are no legal grounds that should have stopped me being able to while living in my own home in Breizh, France, exercising my genuine… choice, to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation and receive compensation including free unlimited universal health care of my choosing instead.
13. The Victorian Premier certainly owes me compensation for my not being able to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation while in my own home in Breizh, France, including in a timely manner.
14. The British ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson was able to renounce his American citizenship after the premeditated torture and attempted murder of me (where has always illegally refused to hand over the CCTV to me) and I am legally entitled to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation instead, including in for example my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 that British & Australian politicians cannot sidestep, overtake, or go around.
15. The primary reason the Victorian Premier orchestrated my being unlawfully arrested while quietly sitting in a chair in the County Court on 21st December 2021 (the very same court the government publicly claim adopted people have to go to with regard to anything about what politicians label adoption ie: Case 352) is because draconian adoption legislation has never had any logical connection to child protection or healthcare. I was trying to extricate myself from adoption and leave the country to return to my own home in Breizh, France while the Premier was trying to cover up illegally using draconian adoption legislation to effectively imprison me without legal representation or trial in Australia. I didn’t know until I found out by happenstance in May 2022 when I was still trying to leave the country and return to my own home in Breizh, France what he had been doing behind my back, by falsifying government records to make it appear I owned property in Australia to try and hide intentionally making me homeless in Australia. Even when I raised my concerns about discovering records had been falsified behind my back, no politician or public official did anything. It was only after I was diagnosed with cancer so people from numerous agencies began asking all sorts of questions that politicians were forced to mostly amend the falsified government records. There was no apology or offer of compensation for falsifying records etc.
There is no doubt the Victorian Premier will discriminate against a cancer patient for personal political reasons.
16. It is self evident the Victorian Premier & fmr Health Minister Andrews was… always protecting the British MP, fmr PM and Mayor of London ‘chickenfeed’ Johnson.
It was chicken feed for the Barclay Brothers & Co to hire Johnson as effectively their hitman who posed as a ‘journalist’ while Mayor of London:
It is legally problematic that chickenfeed Johnson illegally refused to hand over the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me:
The chicken-feed Johnson’s malicious prosecution below of Brian and myself, was in every sense a distraction to try and cover up the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me etc, because of course there is adoption in… republics too:
The real legal point is it is not lawful for someone who orchestrated the torture and attempted murder of someone to then bring a malicious prosecution against that person to try and hide that.
The (inaccurate) BBC account (the BBC’s own lies had simply grown because they never corrected their lies on Mothers Day 200) giving a platform to now disgraced ‘chicken feed’ Johnson who was illegally being funded to literally be a hitman for robber media barons didn’t mind grandstanding in the press, but he would never have dared repeat a single word on the witness stand in a court before a jury:
The Liberal Victorian MP Mr Bach who claims to be adopted and is a big supporter of ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson in the UK is only useful to Murdoch et al who have never cared about vulnerable children, as long as he supports adoption. Murdoch controls the British Minister Gove for precisely the same reason. The politicians use of the cult of celebrity (ie: the NSW government illegally paying money to ‘AdoptChange’ which is another bunch of Murdoch et al groupies) to promote the commodification of adopted people as the latest must have accessory is because the cult of celebrity rely on… free publicity. Mr Bach took over from a Ms Wooldridge who horse-traded compensation for adoption, with a well paid cushy gig at a phoney gender equality quango, so is no different to ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson.
This is still trying to go ‘around’ the… global issue about a genuine… choice for all adopted people, regardless of race, religion, politics or none, where the predatory practice still goes wherever it can find vulnerable children:
18. A properly directed jury could only conclude politicians rebranding of adoption while widely trying to increase ‘quotas’ of people labelled adopted really is only about trying to illegally avoid compensation for existing adoptions.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 