Donna Bugat: My Universal Court Order with $1 damages, to overturn practise of adoptions so governments pay for new documentation & excess costs of global health & insurance cover takes immediate legal effect (04.01.2021)
... donna... the reasonable self defence of the peace and harmony of the rule of law exists every single day, to make the world a safer and kinder place for the benefit of everyone...
My Universal Court Order with $1 damages, to overturn the practise of adoptions, so that governments pay for new documentation, and any excess costs for global health and insurance cover, takes immediate effect, and peacefully ends any legal argument, or the need for any trials.
The governments obviously do not have any legal right or insurance cover, to arbitrarily impose on or remove from vulnerable children… any identity, religion, nationality or citizenships without due process or legal representation as though we have less legal rights than citizens, immigrants or refugees.
The practise of adoptions with… so many ‘unknowns’ are obviously not necessary or proportionate, so it is a legal impossibility to make the millstone of adoption legal, that an adult knows, makes no legal sense at all.
The legal reality is the practise of adoptions cannot continue, so the transition to legally reviewable guardianships until adulthood has to begin, to try and… genuinely protect everyone.
There are no legal grounds for my universal Court Order, that politicians do not oppose, to not take immediate legal effect.
In practise this means governments and insurance companies can argue between themselves what physical and emotional harm has been caused by the illegal practise of adoptions that are nothing more than show trials of vulnerable children without any due process or legal representation.
I would have personally been… hugely relieved !! as a child to have had my own identity, and to have been told my adoption would not continue (that I said as a child I didn’t want to continue) and was going to be changed to a legally reviewable guardianship until adulthood. I would in my own case, have been returned to and re-united with my own family… as a small child, including… before my adoption even took place, if there had been legally reviewable guardianships until adulthood. The onus is really on caring and responsible adults to support legally reviewable guardianships until adulthood, rather than the divisive ‘options’ of adoptions and care homes, to try and ensure… all vulnerable children have a better life that really is about the best interests of a child.
I have fulfilled my legal responsibilities to the best of my ability, by legally providing evidence governments will refuse without lawful excuse to hand over CCTV that belongs to me, including in a timely manner, because they know they have no insurance cover.
The legal reality is it has become a legal impossibility in the absence of CCTV that I own, being in my… possession, including in a timely manner, so I could legally… choose to do what I want to do, without improper interference, for governments to oppose paying the excess costs of any global health and insurance cover I choose.
There are no legal grounds to treat me so differently from (for example) the same person who is the Victorian Ombudsman in Australia, who was the former IPCC Commissioner in the UK while I was in Parliament Square Central London, because the reasonable self defence of the peace and harmony of the rule of law that naturally exists, does mean everyone is equal.
The legal reality is a jury in either country would agree it is (for example) the same person who is the Victorian Ombudsman in Australia, who was the former IPCC Commissioner in the UK, just as I am the same person, and the same CCTV is legally just as relevant in either country.
It is impossible to understand (including because there is no published process prescribed by law) why the Australian government refused to let me leave Australia, to be with my boyfriend, in the Netherlands, recently, before he died, because they knew (for example) I have my own home in France, if the Australian government also intended to stop me from returning to Australia, while they refuse to provide me with social housing etc etc in Australia anyway.
I understand the governments and their departments had a meeting on 8th December 2006 (the Victorian Ombudsman in Australia and former IPCC Commissioner in the UK knows they failed to invite Brian or myself to, before they illegally refused to disclose the details of the meeting to myself and Brian, which they would have to disclose to a jury) because… they had no insurance cover, which is why Neil was illegally ‘arrested’ on 8th December 2012.
It is seriously malicious that governments unlawfully 'arrested' Neil, because the governments knew they as governments, had no insurance cover.
It should be surreal that Steve was arrested on his birthday, because he said he wanted a jury trial.
The governments are legally obliged to provide new documentation at no cost to me (just as they were legally obliged to do when I was a child) so it is possible for me to get on with… my own life.
It is obviously a very straightforward legal matter that only legally reviewable guardianships until adulthood are legally permissible, and prescribed by law.
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)