Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria Case 352: In the Matter of My Order for an adopted person led universal agreement on informed consent for discharge & choice of healthcare (21.10.2020)  

 

 

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MELBOURNE                      CASE 352

 

IN THE MATTER OF MY ORDER FOR AN ADOPTED PERSON LED UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT ON INFORMED CONSENT FOR DISCHARGE & CHOICE OF HEALTHCARE

 

 

 

... my name is donna...

 

 

  

by Donna Bugat

 

Date of Document: 5th October 2020

Filed by: Donna Bugat

Prepared by: Donna Buga

 

1. I have legally notified the County Court by email, with my own verified signature I am legally using my own name Donna Bugat.

 

There is no legal basis for this to not be recognised by any government.

 

2. I am also discharging my own ‘adoption’ by email.

 

There are no legal civil, criminal or other penalties that could be applied to me for my peacefully refusing to recognise my own ‘adoption’.

 

I will give specific legal immunity in my own case, to governments who participate in national and international adoption (my case is both) so that I can significantly progress wider fundamental universal change that is necessary, so that all adopted people, nationally and internationally, in any country, have a qualified right as a child (I was capable of giving informed consent to discharge my adoption as a minor) and an absolute right as an adult, to with informed consent, discharge our own adoptions.

 

The governments who participate in adoption currently claim they generally rely on a) the informed consent of parent/s to an adoption (which is far too often untrue) but b) perversely refuse the absolute right of adults to discharge our adoptions, despite not having our informed consent to the adoption continuing in adulthood which simply is not legally sustainable. The bad adoption practices include governments illegally collecting and sharing information without the informed consent of adopted children and adults including for seriously biased and libellous ’scientific’ studies that claim to (for example) be investigating the ability to ‘predict’ criminality and so on, based on ‘genetics’ (refer " A Swedish national adoption study of criminality" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009388/ while at the same time keeping genetic medical information from adopted people.

 

This transferral of information to... target adopted people including across borders, is obviously intended to ’sidestep’ governments own absolute refusal (ie: Sweden refer http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/eu-sweden.pdf "IV: Swedish law does not allow the cancellation of an adoption") to recognise adopted people’s right to discharge adoptions, because governments are really trying to give... themselves, the widest possible legal immunity.

 

It is self evident I obviously need to be able to exercise my fundamental right to discharge my own adoption as an adult, to also be able to exercise my legal right to give my informed consent to healthcare, in any meaningful way.

 

3. I am legally entitled to the state provision of agreed hotel accommodation with my own private facilities, or over 55 social housing in Australia, through my own Court Order, that negates any need for me to fill in any forms (any recovery process from adoption is already incredibly difficult when any or all ‘bureaucracy’ has adversely affected your entire life, by misleading you over your own right to exercise informed consent to discharge your adoption) when and because I am not able for whatever reason to live in my own home in France (I do not personally want the accompanying responsibility that is involved in managing additional housing) This properly addresses the human and legal issues surrounding the ‘legal limbo’ of vulnerable adopted people that can in practise make us eternal refugees and exiles, while non refoulement is often breached.

 

The state provision of agreed hotel accommodation with my own private facilities, or over 55 social housing, which must not retraumatize me, affords me as an adopted person, some space to make my own informed decisions to reconnect, and make new friendships too, with my own identity, which must be done in a non adversarial environment, without improper political or other influence.

 

No remotely competent legal or healthcare professional could possibly claim my current housing in Australia meets my needs, and benefits my health and well being, either before, or during a global pandemic when it is not even known if and when a vaccine may be available that may not be suitable for everyone. This is not a criticism of those providing my current accommodation, but rather a responsible observation it was never intended to be a long term arrangement for anyone, including because everyone is an individual human being with different needs.

 

The state provision of agreed hotel accommodation with my own private facilities, or over 55 social housing also means I would place my recent satellite litigation over hotel quarantine in August 2020, with a civil jury ‘sine die’ (ie: it is indefinitely adjourned)

 

4. My $3 million dollar ‘consultation fee’ I am claiming, which is tax free and cannot be ‘means tested’ is intended to cover the costs of my:

 

a) giving legal immunity in my case, to governments who participate in national and international adoptions (my case is both) so I can help progress universal informed consent to discharge adoptions

 

b) modifying my own home in France

 

c) purchasing fully comprehensive travel and health insurance

 

d) building a voluntary apolitical DNA Bank in the autonomous Golan Heights for the benefit of humanity.

 

The UN are legally obliged to recognise my own Judaism is based on the peace and harmony of the rule of law, so I do not need the ‘permission’ of anyone else including other Jewish people to be Jewish, including while there is only one Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world.

 

The voluntary apolitical DNA Bank will be an opportunity for adopted people and their families to have an additional and alternative non governmental avenue to reconnect with and have support from within their own families in their own way.

 

d) being available as a ‘McKenzie friend’ on an ongoing basis in adoption cases, anywhere (which may mean I need some support too, to manage emotional triggers etc)

 

provides considerable undeniable value for money.

 

It is essential for adopted people to have access to trusted adopted person led, timely and effective support, at all times, to help adopted people make important informed decisions, in any situation.

 

My personal view is Zoom has the potential to be an effective technology in sharing information and giving evidence in adoption cases when it is done with the informed consent of the adopted person, because it can facilitate the option of anonymity for adopted children or adults, so that human and legal issues can still be properly addressed.

 

All governments who participate in adoption, nationally and internationally, should be liable for the ‘excess costs’ of any adopted persons choice of a fully comprehensive travel and health insurance policy, so ‘pre-existing health conditions’ are essentially included on a ‘no fault’ basis, because that helps adopted people who through no fault of our own, can face particularly challenging circumstances.

 

The unrecognised multicultural world of adopted people who are a marginalised minority has gone on too long, without adopted person led reform, despite the fact remains, the truth is, anyone could find themselves adopted as a child, for any number of reasons.

 

 

 

 

6. The costs of my Order giving my informed consent to my discharge and choice of sustainable healthcare, will therefore be met by the State of Victoria.

 

The best world there can be for everyone is one filled with the love of family and friends. 

 

 

Signed by Donna Bugat

 

in the State of Victoria this

5th day of October 2020 

 

Address: xx xxx xx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, 22450, Brittany, France.

 

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

  

N.B: The practise of governments exploiting ‘adoption’ to recruit (and try and recruit) vulnerable children for intelligence services should obviously be universally banned.