Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I have properly renounced prolonged life threatening draconian adoption legislation, so I am claiming a universal health & social care program as compensation, that includes my having free Australian passport in my own identity so I can make my own choices to live & have medical treatment to help me properly recover from cancer etc in Australia or elsewhere (after statutory declaration free former Australian Labour PM Rudd who Cardinal Pell et al hid behind, now wants to pose as Australian Ambassador to United States to try & hide behind legal immunity after he hid my Mediterranean background, along with my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order & CCTV of torture & attempted murder of me in UK to collect multibillion dollar brown envelopes for himself, at my expense, while also refusing more Comonwealth money for healthcare in Victoria) (13.01.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential for my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination to self determination.
There cannot possibly be any reasonable doubt I have properly renounced draconian adoption legislation. It’s not possible for politicians to discriminate and say people who are labelled adopted cannot have a genuine choice to renounce draconian adoption legislation.
I don’t think anyone could say they reasonably believed the former statutory declaration free Australian Labour PM Rudd wants to be the Australian Ambassador to the United States because he cares about Australian citizens.
Rudd is certainly still full steam ahead with… Murdoch, spinning nuclear powered submarines.
The statutory declaration free former Australian Labour PM Rudd who has always been a privatising poverty profiteer mired in scandal in the UK, welcoming a Pope Benedict & a bagman in 2008 in Australia:
Rudd always had a personal financial interest in becoming Australian PM to try and protect his private financial interests in the UK etc where he collected a $1.4 billion dollar bribe at my expense in 2012 to hide I won for example HQ11X00563:
I have a quite extraordinary tape recording that Brian made (he was exceptionally well practised and disciplined) of the British government talking at me, for two hours on 9th March 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London in the UK before they concluded in writing they could not take any further action against me (NFA) using the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, I helped force off the statute books. So the political murkiness surrounding my unlawful arrest on Mothers Day 26th March in 2006, when the BBC published a false account of my unlawful.arrest, so the former British PM Blair could grandstand before the Australian Parliament, the next day, instead of resigning, is even more inexplicable because of that.
The truth is the statutory declaration free former Australian Labour PM Rudd had every opportunity to speak with me while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, but he didn’t because he was too busy collecting brown envelopes at my expense, which he had always planned to do, because he knew the legal situation… before he became PM in late 2007. He could have personally funded the billion or so dollars the now Premier Andrews claimed he wanted from Rudd in 2010 when Rudd was PM and the now Premier Andrews was Health Minister in Victoria.
Pope Benedict et al go to British Parliament in 2010:
This was the big news in the Westminster Village at the time because Westminster were forced to remit the case of Brian and myself back to the High Court, (including because they did not want us to leapfrog to the ECHR with such a scandal involving members of the monarchy and senior politicians etc) so the headline etc is quite misleading, because they had to try and re-write so much:
The Times Law Report is a load of old cobblers, because it hides what -I- said in the High Court on 21st June 2010 etc, but I would have been surprised anyway, to see any of the anything but independent old Law Lords bend to anything other than the will of a member of the monarchy.
There’s a significant number of the same politicians still around like the President (of Delaware) in the United States (Delaware is a popular tax haven for British people in Westminster and people like the Australian born American citizen Murdoch)
Rudd did not tell the truth about the revolving PM’s in Australia on 23rd June 2010, when I was illegally denied legal representation on the same day in the UK:
Of course, Brian and I were not trying to land helicopters in Parliament Square, Central London:
They should both have actually thought about compensation for people who renounce draconian adoption legislation, because politicians should really be legally liable for all the healthcare costs of people labelled adopted.
The statutory declaration free political leaders like Rudd… legislated draconian adoption legislation that religious leaders like Cardinal Pell could then hide behind themselves, which is why people labelled adopted are excluded from institutionalised abuse redress.
It’s not like Premier Andrews has actually consistently ever… listened to or cared about what is needed in the health system, and when he was a Health Minister he is just speaking like a man with a portfolio, rather than a… human with an enthusiastic interest in people having the best possible healthcare:
The reality is people who are labelled adopted and renounce draconian adoption legislation are arguably the best cohort of people to properly test a universal health and social care program. Such a program has the potential to help transform the global legal landscape with an International Civil Court with the choice of juries too.
The pain caused by one of my autoimmune illnesses has significantly worsened because of an increase in additional stress over the last few weeks, over and above the prolonged stress of dysfunctional draconian adoption legislation combined with trying to properly recover from cancer etc etc.
Yet, it’s really not at all complicated that someone labelled adopted is legally entitled to have a genuine choice to renounce draconian adoption just like other people who are labelled adopted can make a different choice to remain adopted. I don’t pretend I understand why someone would want to continue to be labelled adopted, but I do know the fact some people may want to remain adopted does not provide legal grounds to impose adoption on anyone else.
It’s arguable there’s vast sums of public money wasted on having too many state and federal… politicians, and their media advisers:
This is because what politicians call adoption is never in any circumstances necessary or the only option and indeed when it is forced on someone who is labelled adopted it can only really be described as child or human trafficking. It is really only consenting adults who could agree between themselves to as adults have a court order about succession or whatever else adoption is then supposed to be about because continuing to be labelled adopted as an adult obviously does not have any legal connection to child protection.
I think most politicians have intentionally been under-funding health care, because they want everyone to have private healthcare, instead:
The question of rape and adoption is a sensitive one because some people are adopted because a mother was raped, but that does not actually justify politicians resorting to using dysfunctional adoption, while politicians simultaneously ignore that some people are raped because they have been labelled adopted and can therefore be more easily accessible to and targeted by predators, which can all happen inside or outside a declared war zone.
It is precisely for those reasons that the state must no questions asked, respect the right of someone labelled adopted to renounce draconian adoption legislation. This means the state does also have a mandatory legal duty of care to confirm to someone they are adopted if that person asks the state, because the person who has not been informed they are adopted is just as legally entitled to renounce draconian adoption legislation as any other person labelled adopted too.
This is the dirty money in for example the UK, that Rudd laundered through his partner’s company he financially benefits from, at my expense, that was hiding I won for example HQ11X00563 despite everything he covered up:
My personal view is the only sensible option is to have a single global register of people who choose to renounce draconian adoption legislation and want that to be properly recorded because it is the political free for all of draconian adoption legislation inside and outside war zones that has caused so many problems for people labelled adopted everywhere. The use of all kinds of draconian adoption legislation is a problem pretty much everywhere.
I do not personally know of any legal justification for draconian adoption legislation to continue, because of course there are actual legal ways to responsibly achieve improved child protection without forcing adoption on vulnerable children because that suits some adults. The only reason adoption really seems to continue to exist is because it is such an easy way for politicians to buy votes and for other people to play happy families for a while, while politicians avoid compensation, instead of remembering a vulnerable child who grows into an adult is entitled to make our own decisions too, no questions asked.
One of the most stupefyingly offensive features of the dystopian and dysfunctional world of draconian adoption legislation is politicians claiming that someone labelled adopted needs to pay money to and justify to the satisfaction of and have the permission of a court, to not want to remain adopted as an adult, after having never entered into any agreement to be labelled adopted by draconian adoption legislation anyway.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 