Donna Bugat

Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I have as a reasonable & responsible adult… already lawfully & officially renounced ‘adoption court order’ made when I was a child, regardless of any legislation or constitution etc (before I was officially diagnosed with notifiable illness of recurrent cancer) because that was my own decision to make without needing to go to any court & could include an uncontested office in Jerusalem to register all renunciations (I was illegally stopped from identifying myself as Donna & choosing to be Jewish & living with & acknowledging my indigenous Mediterranean heritage, while I was in Israel in 1984 because I am an ‘adoptee’ which was same time draconian adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia was illegally made based on me, to protect…’reputations’ of politicians & Murdoch family who trafficked me to intelligence services before British fmr PM Johnson et al tortured & attempted murder etc me, while he was Mayor of London & I was in Parliament Square, Central London in UK & City of London spiv Forshaw refused to hand over CCTV -he should never have had in his possession – because he was implicated & so I was then stopped from living in my own home in Breizh France too) (12.07.2023)

My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.

It is legally straightforward and uncomplicated that the personal decision of someone who was labelled as an ‘adoptee’ as a vulnerable child, can lawfully as a reasonable and responsible adult, officially renounce an ‘adoption court order’ at any time, regardless of where we live and any legislation or constitution and without needing to go to any court anywhere.

______

I was obviously legally sent this email, that is really all about an illegal ‘adoption court order’:

The ‘adoption court order’ only continues/d to be illegally imposed on me as an adult to protect the ‘reputations’ of others like politicians, and the Murdoch family who trafficked me to the intelligence services.

A cancer registry:

The legal reality is an ‘adoptee’ needs to be able to speak for ourselves, because too many people (like politicians, a Murdoch hire in the Supreme Court in the United States, or the cult of celebrity) will often identify someone who is labelled as an ‘adoptee’ for their own self interest:

I was illegally denied any opportunity to identify myself as Donna and choose to be Jewish, and live with and acknowledge my indigenous Mediterranean heritage while I was in Israel in 1984, because it was illegal to identify myself as an ‘adoptee’ (you could be imprisoned) while at the same time politicians in Australia based legislation in Victoria on me to protect the ‘reputations’ of politicians and the Murdoch family who trafficked me to the intelligence services. The man called Barnett who posed as my godfather was Director General of ASIO at the time, so obviously all he cared about was his… ‘reputation’. They had sent me 12000 miles away from Australia as a teenager, precisely because they had never cared about my life at all, but there was a very real ‘risk’ I would discover my little sister from the same parents living nearby, and they would not be able to stop us from living together, and so the truth would out and so on.

There are all sorts of seriously perverse outcomes of ‘adoption court orders’ because politicians and their wealthy ‘sponsors’ will often legislate to protect their own ‘reputations’ including by criminalizing an ‘adoptee’ not just for identifying as an ‘adoptee’ but for refusing to stay ‘adopted’ which in too many instances is really child and human trafficking. A for example former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, created ‘adoption’ legislation to suit himself.

Of course, it must be reasonable self-defence to have a Jewish State by the Mediterranean sea, because Jewish people have always lived all around and are indigenous to the Mediterranean.

It is however obviously illegal to say a reasonable and responsible adult cannot make our own decision as an adult ‘adoptee’ (I don’t like the label myself) to officially renounce an ‘adoption court order’ made while we were minors that we could not agree or disagree with, without our needing to go to court. The politicians only have limited legal authority to legislate ‘care arrangements’ for minors that has been widely overstepped with most ‘adoption’ legislation.

The lawful way to right the historical wrong of ‘adoption court orders‘ originally imposed on ‘adoptees’ when children is through being able to safely officially renounce that ‘adoption court order’ at any time as adults (people need to be able to safely do that in their own time when thy want to, without being pressured and so on) because it is not something we have agreed to as adults. The ‘adoption court orders’ imposed on vulnerable children differ completely from the ‘adoption court orders’ made between consenting adults for what are essentially tax purposes. The people who are making it difficult for ‘adoptees’ to lawfully just officially renounce the ‘adoption court order’ are politicians and the likes of the Murdoch family.

There is no identifiable civil or criminal harm caused by an adult ‘adoptee’ officially renouncing an adoption court order (made when we were minors that we could not agree or disagree with) without our needing to go to any court, because it is entirely our decision to make and does not need any judicial involvement.

******************

I helped repeal ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK that was made against Brian who I campaigned with before the politicians made the ‘window dressing’ of legislation against me in the UK too with ss 141-150 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. There wasn’t a single politician, police officer, prosecutor, judge or media baron who… congratulated us on that repeal which it was extremely unusual for any small group of people with no legal training to even manage to do, and particularly in the circumstances we did. The Murdoch family henchman Lord Marlesford (see below) was incandescent with rage in the British House of Lords.

******************

The politicians in Victoria, Australia knew when I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019 that when I walked into the ‘Adoption Information Service’ in the DOJ that the draconian adoption legislation from 1984 was based on me, was also ‘window-dressing’ that could not apply, including retrospectively. The politicians knew it was unreasonable to legislate to force people to for example return to Australia to pay money to and ask the ‘permission’ of a court to officially renounce an ‘adoption court order‘ that btw the politicians had illegally refused to hand over while I was living overseas, because they didn’t want it to be challenged elsewhere.

It’s not credible that politicians did not know how… unreasonable it is to expect an ‘adoptee’ to return to the state or country of origin to go through an obstacle course of the unknown in courts that in reality is just about protecting the… reputations of politicians and for example the Murdoch family.

‘OVER-PROMISING’:

The main reason there are so many ‘sharp practises’ in the global multi-billion dollar adoption industry. is because politicians et al are ‘over-promising’ with ‘adoption court orders’ in the knowledge they have no legal authority to legislate such an abuse of process. The Australian politicians and the British monarchy are but several examples of other people who do not have to go to any court when they officially renounce citizenships or the monarchy, they were born into, which is the same for ‘adoptees’ with ‘adoption court orders’ made when we were minors and could not agree or disagree. The reality is what politicians call ‘adoption’ would not have such a bad name if there were actual legal processes like an ‘adoptee’ officially renouncing an adoption court order without needing to go to court.

There only needs to be an office where any official renunciations from any adoptee of any race, religion, politics or none can be… registered. There could be an office in Jerusalem to do that, which would be one thing there, that was not contested.

It’s possible to set up a cancer registry, so its obviously possible to set up a registry for renunciations of adoption court orders to help, support and…. encourage ‘adoptees’ to safely move on with our own lives, when we choose to.

I was married in New Zealand and divorced in the UK, without needing to return to New Zealand. The main reason I had never really wanted to get married in the first place, was not because I didn’t believe in the ‘institution’ of marriage per se, but was because being labelled ‘adopted’ had already… illegally taken so much decision making away from me, and caused so much loss, I just didn’t want to risk another piece of paper/legislation from a government that purported politicians could take away…. even more of my ability to make my own decisions by being ‘married’.

I was repeatedly unlawfully arrested in the UK so politicians and the Murdoch family et al could publish whatever they liked while I was illegally detained because I could not get an injunction to prevent lies being published while I was illegally detained. The politicians et al and their spiv lawyer in the City of London called Forshaw opposed all courts having recordings of who said what, when & why in courts and the reason the City of London spiv illegally refused to hand over CCTV of torture and attempted murder of me that should never have been in his possession was because he was directly implicated.

It is scandalous that I was unlawfully arrested etc 48 times in Parliament Square Central London, just so that politicians and media barons could illegally publish whatever they liked while I was illegally detained, (The arguably biggest fans of Johnson et al’s phoney ‘Democracy Village’ Matryoshka illegally used against Brian and myself was the Russian government who were good friends with Australian politicians too, at that time)

It’s a legal impossibility to explain how Johnson (who had form with Darius Guppy) ever passed any ‘security vetting’ and of course he was completely legally compromised, long before he fronted the Big Brexit panjandrum, which couldn’t change he didn’t have legal immunity when he was Mayor of London, etc, and he only became PM when I was forced to leave my own home in Breizh France.

The City of London spiv (Forshaw) illegally refused to hand over the CCTV to me of the torture and attempted murder of me, that should never have been in his possession, including because he was implicated himself. I had my ability to make my own decision, about what I wanted to do illegally taken away from me again over the CCTV (I never even agreed anything was just a ‘civil matter’)

The unlawful state opening arrests of Brian and myself on 25th May 2010 that actually took place many hours before the State Opening, was part of the cover-up over the torture and attempted murder of me (I was targeted first on that day, and when Brian saw that he quickly came over, and then I just happened to get out and start reading a perjured witness statement from the government, so then they turn their attention to Brian to try and unlawfully arrest him first because he had a video recording too that they don’t know continued recording when it was passed to me by Brian when he is unlawfully arrested, before I am then unlawfully arrested and their own video shows the tape being taken from our video camera by the government, before the video camera is put back in Brian’s tent:

The government realised on 25th May 2010 that I was holding on to, and reading out a perjured witness statement (below) the City of London spiv (Forshaw) knew… implicated him too !! in the cover up over the torture and attempted murder of me (The synchronizd government and independent video, showed me… realizing while I am reading out what is repeated as hearsay in a perjured witness statement must have ….originated from the City of London spiv (Forshaw) trying to cover his… own tracks because of course I know first hand who said what and when a perjured witness statement refers to, because I was there, AND so was was Forshaw and that was legally recorded too.

I was legally publicly reading out and holding on to a perjured witness statement that included hearsay, that I knew was a lie that I knew could only have… originated from the City of London spiv -Forshaw- illegally trying to cover his own tracks too)

(The case CO/11393/2007 -below- where I was an interested party because Brian asked me to be, shows the government was routinely… illegally refusing to hand over ‘custody records’ in most cases because spivs like Forshaw et al knew they were obviously relevant to unlawful arrests which were really about the government being able to illegally publish whatever they wanted, like on Mothers Day 26th March 2006, on 23rd May 2006, the State Opening on 25th May 2010 and in for example HQ12X03465 that included 16th January 2012.

The government have always illegally refused to hand over the custody record from the Murdoch Family’s ‘Mothers Day’ 26th March 2006 because it shows that what was published in the press was untrue and that it was really agreed on that day, that I had a civil jury lawsuit:

It was legally impossible to explain how numerous …. other ‘inextricably linked’ cases, some of which Brian refers to with regard to Southwark Crown Court and the High Court, had gone ahead without basic disclosures being made:

A ‘Gold Commander’ eventually admitted (outside actual legal proceedings in a court, because he was never going to front up before any… jury) he personally ‘authorised’ my unlawful arrest on 23rd May 2006 (because of course the government…. could not publish their lies unless I was illegally detained because they already knew I had the -original- civil jury lawsuit from Mothers Day 26th March 2006. I was unlawfully arrested on 26th March 2006 so Blair could grandstand in Australia for the Murdoch… family of child traffickers on 27th March 2007. Blair did Murdoch’s bidding about adoption legislation too, that Blair ‘reserved’ to himself :

I doubt that Murdoch disclosed his family interest in child trafficking (which could not be passed of as ‘philanthropic’) when becoming an American citizen.

The politicians et al did obviously reasonably know they had ‘no recognised defence in law’ to unlawfully arresting me so they could publish whatever they liked while I was illegally detained)

The Murdoch family henchman Lord Marlesford in the British House of Lords in maliciously targeting me, illegally using parliamentary privilege to intentionally mislead the public on the same day/ around the same time the Murdoch family withdrew from the BskyB deal and another top cop resigned:

Most people would have thought the Murdoch family henchman Lord Marlesford had something else to go on about rather than Parliament Square and who was in Parliament Square, in the midst of so much scandal at that time, which was shortly after Brian had died.

I had formally complained when Murdoch’s Sky News Live literally published a ‘hit piece’ on 19th July 2009 saying we would be illegally ‘removed’ without any caveats on how that would be done that led directly to the torture and attempted murder of me, before Brian died. I had after all previously been kidnapped during ‘extraordinary’ live proceedings in a… court on 19th July 2007, to stop me giving evidence, before the CPS then hastily conceded the government “put in place a sequence of events (that had involved Murdoch) that put my life at risk”.

When Murdoch’s henchman was going on about Parliament Square, they knew I had really ‘won’ for example HQ11X00563 which the former Australian PM Rudd covered up which is why he was given $1.4 billion dollars by the British government he laundered through Ingeus of which he was a beneficiary, that is why he is now the Australian Ambassador to the United States, because of course he doesn’t really have legal immunity and nor does the latest Australian PM.

This is an illegal attempt by Australian politicians to try and circumvent ‘universal jurisdiction’ and any pretence of any separation of powers between politicians, prosecutors and the judiciary

The Australian politicians just ‘forgot’ to mention why Rudd really had to resign on 23rd June 2010 before the phony ‘apology’ using the political language of ‘forced adoptions’ that was at best damage limitation, before Rudd made a brief re-appearance as PM when I had left the UK (British Commonwealth and was living in Breizh, France):

The oddly all male global media barons closely guard their chummy echo chamber with the political classes, because that is the easiest way for politicians and media barons to personally profit. So, I don’t know how successful an International ‘anti-corruption court’ would be that would depend on how it was set up, because most of the corruption is between the revolving doors of inextricably linked politicians and oddly all male media barons who rely on each other to profit along with their mates.

I think at least trying to stop the trafficking of vulnerable children across the world, that we already know most politicians and media barons like the Murdoch family don’t care about, and is widely done under the guise of ‘adoption court orders’ must be a priority, that I don’t know how an IACC would stop, but doesn’t mean there does not need to be an International Civil Court with the choice of juries for civilian populations. The likes of the ECHR are very limited in scope (and in my own case could only really confirm my right to a civil jury)

It is logical that the more politicians legislate in favour of their own self interest and that of their mates, the more necessary an International Civil Court with the choice of juries for civilian populations would be.

The unscrupulous Blair used the Iraq War to push through vast swathes of politically profiteering legislation… in the UK:

It is reasonable to suggest Blair set up the International Criminal Court without the ability to investigate the crime of aggression (until 2018) because he knew that was what the UK was going to commit in Iraq, so a former MI6 Head who fed the spin, . is dissembling, like Blair:

DE-POLITICISE ‘ADOPTION’:

There have long been and continue to be… unresolved national and international controversies surrounding the political ‘policy’ of ‘adoption’ that in going forward or trying to progress does highlight the need for an International Civil Court with the choice of juries, to de-politicise ‘adoption’. The interference of politicians with a political policy called ‘adoption’ does ‘over-promise’ what is legally possible and cannot be imposed on all adopted people. The politicians are standing in the way of progress in safely providing for vulnerable children, because their focus is on making money for themselves and their mates, instead.

A ‘SPECIFIC GROUP‘:

It is undeniable that ‘adoptees’ have a legal right to speak for ourselves and that universal jurisdiction applies and that our cases are all different, and that politicians cannot speak for or instead of all adoptees, who in the legal sense are a ‘specific group’ that does really need an International Civil Court with the choice of juries instead.

(Brian once said when three males from the UN in Geneva spoke to him that we could have done with ‘UN peacekeepers’ in what became the highly contested space in Parliament Square, Central London that was supposed to be a… public space)

My personal lived experience of being labelled and trafficked as an ‘adoptee’ and being a peace campaigner is that what is very clearly… missing in International Law is an International Civil Court with the choice of juries for civilian populations which is doable, and most people would support.

A kinder evolution is possible.

This statement is true

Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)