Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case 352): Re: Ex parte permanent injunctions against adoption legislation etc and DJCS trying to shift blame with false assertion of unknown agreed meeting etc that is not in a signed and dated witness statement & would not be repeated before a jury (27.07.2021)
Ms K,
I am now looking into proceeding with ex-parte permanent injunctions against adoption…. legislation, … in another state, with additional costs payable by the State of Victoria, that includes your department. This is because there is a ‘bewildering’ lack of acknowledgement that due process 101 that (presumably) applies in all other court cases, cannot simply be replaced by any old… legislation, in… adoption cases.
If I need to include obtaining a court order to receive the outstanding court records from your department… by email, so be it, and just advise me of that, by email, respectfully. It is noted you have failed to provide me with any… evidence of your false assertion by email today of my failing to attend an alleged meeting that was agreed for an unknown and undisclosed date, I know nothing about.
I think I am capable of notifying the court that in fact the true legal position is your adoption department has illegally covered up the torture and attempted murder of me as an… adopted person.
I do not reasonably believe there was ever any genuine purpose to my having any meeting with your department, anyway, because you and your department have covered up the torture and attempted murder of me, as an adopted person, which is actually a very serious issue. (I do already know, your ‘department’ does not have any staff who are trained to appropriately speak with adopted people coming to your office, who have PTSD, so it is only ever about whatever suits public officials) XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX tried to commit suicide because of adoption so there are real problems, just being swept under the carpet, by… your department.
*****************
I do not personally reasonably believe you or anyone else from your department will repeat your false assertion about any agreed meeting I know nothing about, in either a signed and dated witness statement and/or before a jury in a court.
Including the part about how your so called “adoption department” covered up the torture and attempted murder of an… err… adopted person.
It’s really not okay to try and shift… blame for… anything to the adopted person as usual.
(The problem is the unreasonable demands of the… legislation, not me)
It’s so clear adopted people should always have had lawyers before bureaucrats waving around any legislation they like, are let loose.
My personal view is your department which simply regurgitates any old political, rather than legal narrative, is an empathy free zone that is not fit for any public purpose.
Your department is unwilling to accept the basic fact (maybe a banner or two outside might have helped ?) that adoption legislation is not supposed to simply suit the… bureaucracy of… your department (and any other department) at the expense of adopted people. If adoption legislation does not suit all adopted people then it is adoption legislation that is wrong, because as most people know, more generally, there are unscrupulous politicians.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is not my “fault” that I do not have the full court records/full disclosure after attending the DJCS offices, twice in person.
*******************
I have already discussed in person with the County Court because I am a responsible… adult (including why I will not be filling in any forms in politicians obstacle course of adoption… legislation, because there are) far more sensible alternatives like permanent injunctions against adoption… legislation which it is not your… choice to refuse to acknowledge. The idea that I have to “apply” for anything to IN FACT, reject adoption… legislation, is as dishonest as saying we had to apply for permission, rather than notify under ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation (now repealed) in the UK which we proved was untrue too.
The County Court staff just wanted confirmation from me, of the case number for the registrar to access:
The only question I have been waiting for the County Court in Victoria to definitively answer in writing by email is a) if I have to pay money for the permanent injunction against adoption legislation, and if so, why, because it is not opposed in any signed and dated witness statements, including from your department and b) secondly if there was any opposition what the cost of a jury would then be and if any costs could be reserved until the end of the case which seems fairest in all the true circumstances.
I don’t know personally know why anyone would need to pay money for a permanent injunction against something like adoption legislation, that has never done anything but cause them identifiable harm, when there is already an identifiable case number so I am not opening a new case, per se ? Indeed there is still an outstanding existing Habeas Corpus case in the UK from 16th April 2008, so there are already inextricably linked relevant cases in two countries.
The truth is I am not even happy with the fact, that your department had my … personal information in the first place, (which obviously reminds me of the BBC and New Scotland Yard illegally leaking my adopted name in the UK) including to do what your department wants to do with my personal information, including to make reports to a court !! which not only would not be on my behalf or instead of me, but serves no identifiable purpose that I can identify. The last thing any adopted person who rejects adoption legislation wants is to have anything to do with any part of the state apparatus involved, especially when they are making false assertions without any evidence of my failing to attend a meeting.
______________
The… contested facts (as of today) are I… first attended your office in person in July 2019 when I was told the court records could be sent to me… by email.
The records were not however sent to me by email and so I had to attend your office in person for a… second time.
On the second occasion, (it was agreed) some but still not all the court records were provided to me (for unknown reasons that were not explained because why would all the information not be together that staff did know existed) and I was told some kind of semi-“meeting” between us was being recorded for the purposes of the court, according to adoption legislation, although (it was agreed) I had not been given all the court records at that time, so that was quite confusing, including it had not been explained to me in advance.
I was assured the remaining court records would be sent… by email to me, but they never were, and contrary to the false assertion in your email today, no further meeting at your offices was arranged, that was missed, by me, which would have been a… third meeting. It is noted that you do not provide any… evidence of any (third) meeting being arranged with me, or agreed for… any date (which would in any event seem excessive to me, because what would be the purpose ?)
In particular it remains unclear to me more generally (not just in my case) why any court or your department would even claim there needed any meeting with me according to any legislation, with regard to the disclosure of court records/full disclosure, because all the court records can be sent… by email.
Particularly when I am not even happy with the fact that… anyone in your department had any access to my… personal information, which I find deeply upsetting anyway.
Meanwhile it has transpired, the British PM Johnson and his private contractor Angus Knight were busy !!
(It goes without saying, I am not happy with the British PM Johnson ever having had any access to my personal information that Angus Knight have also improperly used)
I have clearly not in any way…. prevented your office from sending me… the outstanding court records/full disclosure… by email, during the past two years, in the government departmentalized world of completely unworkable adoption legislation, that does not even require me to attend a further/third meeting (… in person ?)
In fact it is your department who are legally obliged to confirm to me they are not, and will not be writing any “report” for any court, that… I have not given them permission to do (regardless of politicians adoption legislation), let alone based on any of the previous two meetings where it is… your departments fault, not mine !! they did not and have not provided the complete records.
Two meetings, with a government department that does not care about the torture and attempted murder of an adopted person, should have been sufficient for that government department to hand over their court records/full disclosure to me !!
It has…. always been clear to your office I would need the quite specific parts of the… outstanding court records to… also help progress obtaining further information I am legally entitled to from the BDM et al even if I had ever needed to pay for those further records (which I should not need to do) so I do reasonably consider that… your office has been deliberately delaying handing over all the relevant information, by email, to me.
I do not now (after your email today) personally reasonably believe that it is mere co-incidence that after my attending your offices… twice… in person, that it is the inconvenient facts of specific information that is useful… to me elsewhere, is what remains outstanding.
(There is a reason I am saying it is necessary to have permanent injunctions against adoption legislation so that people do not need to deal with the plethora of government departments like yours, who all play their ‘bureaucratic’ part in unworkable adoption legislation, which you all only do for money)
It is far better that only legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood are possible, than subjecting anyone to the unreasonable always changing imposition of demands of adoption legislation that at their most basic level… reverse due process.
(I do obviously know the information your office has provided to date, for the most part contains falsified affidavits provided by the adult strangers who posed as my parents, that any court should or would have known are untrue, because the information is contrary to any and all comparable publicly available information at the time, but in any event, their lives are not my life)
I was also given incorrect information by your office even in relation to adoption legislation, and in fact the County Court who rubber-stamp adoptions, are not entirely clear themselves of anything to do with adoption… legislation.
It has never been clear to… me, why the court would want or the DCJS who are complete and utter strangers to me, would give any report to a court regarding any adoption case, including mine but that is what both the DCJS and the County Court… originally claimed was required by adoption legislation !!
The very serious legal problem is the DJCS is misleading adopted people, including by falsely suggesting that adoption legislation…. replaces the 101 legal right to bring lawsuits that do ultimately mean it is more sensible to have a permanent injunction against adoption… legislation, that is a permanent injunction against your department too, because I am not happy that you had my personal information in the first place.
It would be wonderful to wake up one morning in a world with permanent injunctions against adoption legislation so the ‘bureaucracy’ like yourself had to actually act within the peace and harmony of the rule of law instead of whatever unworkable adoption legislation the latest unscrupulous politician figured they could profit from, while trying to always… shift… blame to the adopted person.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 