Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re Victoria Police ‘Official Sensitive’ email 01.04.2022. I do reasonably believe it is… common-sense it is a legal certainty I cannot legally be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced because I have officially inside & outside courts of law, renounced draconian legislation that labelled me adopted (10.02.1962)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
Re Victoria Police ‘Official Sensitive’ email 01.04.2022
I do not know who the named person who sent me the email is, or if it is one of the police officers from 21st December 2021, while of course there has never been a politician or public official who has ever been… sensitive about my personal information. The Victoria Police legal department was responsible for pre-action protocol/letters of claim, arising from/ that are no different from a witness statement which is the foundation of the peace and harmony of the rule of law.
The legal department of Victoria Police do in fact know there is a) a ‘proceeding’ (well that is what politicians call what I say is an abuse of process) in b) Australia that originated when I was a legally unrepresented minor, and politicians used draconian adoption legislation to label me ‘adopted’ to arbitrarily and unnecessarily switch my identity, nationalities and citizenships. (That is after all how I came to be in the UK, before a for example Australian former FM etc called Downer incredibly tried to falsely claim I was not an Australian citizen !! that he could only try and claim by trying to… manipulate for his own personal, political and financial advantage, the fact I was labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation. He was never going to stand in any… court in the UK or Australia and try to… repeat the lie, that I am not an Australian citizen, let alone before a civil jury)
I do reasonably believe it is… common-sense it is a legal certainty I cannot legally be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced because I have officially inside and outside courts of law, renounced draconian adoption legislation that labelled me adopted. It was after all used by… Australian politicians to try and deny I am an… Australian citizen.
The fact is it was Victoria Police who did not want to take a witness statement from me or for me to have legal representation on 21st December 2021.
Therefore Victoria Police did act without lawful authority on 21st December 2021 that has only contributed to… continuing to stop my living in my own… home in Breizh, France with my own identity and peacefully moving on with… my own life. The fact Victoria Police did know I am not voluntarily in Australia, and was trying to go home, does mean that logically Victoria Police must also be legally responsible for the ongoing emotional and financial costs to me of my not being in my own… home in Breizh, France. No police officer had any legal authority to arrest me for officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation that I was legally entitled to do. It is entirely reasonable that I would want to move on with my own life. The Victorian Police could not possibly have any legal authority to do anything that prevented me living in my own… home in Breizh, France, with my… own identity, and moving on with my… own life. It wasn’t even like I was… voluntarily at the County Court in Melbourne on 21st December 2021.
I did subsequently officially legally use my own identity by video link in court proceedings in the UK when I was a McKenzie friend, while I am in Australia, that I can confirm I did without my paying any money to the court in the UK, or asking their permission to use my own identity. The Victorian Police could not reasonably believe that I would need to pay money to a court in the State of Victoria, and have the permission of a court in Australia over anything to with draconian adoption legislation, incl. because the court in the State of Victoria who did the dirty deed, never even so much as ever served any of it’s own alleged court documents over my adoption on me !! It would be a legal impossibility to claim there is anything approaching an agreed accurate and contemporaneous record.
It is simply not legally sustainable for politicians to claim they can enact draconian adoption legislation to label them and those they choose as ‘parents’ forever, while claiming they can lie about the identity of those they label ‘adopted’. There are no legal reasons why a person labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation should not be able to make the same choices and decisions, children and adults who are not labelled ‘adopted’ do.
It is undeniable that I have not given politicians… permission to lie about my identity, and that my… DNA does not match…. politicians fiction about my identity. I am not for example related to any of the alleged ‘official’ cousins in Australia or Britain.
(I was originally misled into believing that some information I was given were the only legal records, relating to me as a legally unrepresented minor, which I did think was in all the true circumstances quite odd. It wasn’t until July 2019 that I first saw what the AIS in the DOJ, not the courts, then purported are (some)… court records relating to me as a legally unrepresented minor, that had never even been…. served on me by any court, as a child or adult, I could not possibly reasonably believe constitute legal or legitimate… court records of any kind let alone when considered alongside the previous incomplete information I was given. Of course any information that has ever been given has only ever been whatever happens to suit the politicians of the day, rather than the information someone labelled ‘adopted’ is legally entitled to have. What are alleged to be court records are… highly unusual in so many legal respects that simply seem to be ignored by draconian adoption legislation that doesn’t even respect norms like due process.
I obviously did not… automatically become a criminal simply by virtue of being in Parliament Square, Central London (when I helped force ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books because the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression labelled law abiding private citizens ‘serious organized criminals’) A civil jury (that I never waived my legal right to) would know that the fact British politicians et al (with the knowledge of Australian politicians et al) had been found by a court to have illegally destroyed independent video footage from 4th September 2006 while I was in Parliament Square, Central London meant it was not merely a ‘co-incidence’ when politicians then refused to hand over the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me that took place on the same date, a few years later.
(It is similarly not illegal for me to not support or swear allegiance to the monarchy -or- a faux republic movement in Australia that consists of just the same old revolving doors of politics and the news media scrum who only want a head of state put forward by politicians and for the wealthiest people to continue to legislate whatever they want.
I would not personally be swearing allegiance to any old…. legislation politicians enact:
It is actually misleading to claim that it is necessary for Australia to have a referendum to become a republic, because of course there is nothing stopping the monarchy having the good manners to officially renounce the… institution of monarchy instead.
The fact it benefits everyone that most people naturally live within the peace and harmony of the rule of law every single day, means there isn’t really any reason a responsible head of state cannot simply promise to serve the public by upholding the peace and harmony of the rule of law without which there can not be any genuine democracy anyway. No-one needs the permission of anyone else or a referendum to uphold the peace and harmony of the rule of law which has checks and balances and safeguards like civil juries because not all… legislation is lawful.
A… republic with state governors appointed by the… crown ?:
Politicians would after all have everyone believe that draconian adoption legislation is the only legislation in the whole world that could never be nullified, including by a civil jury.
The same problems as the for example vast and unelected ‘privy councillors’ in the UK:
The fine print of the faux republic movement’s proposals in Australia essentially just want to perpetuate a head of state with extraordinary legislative over-reach, and over reliance on referendum, with the populist ‘will of the people’ woo (borrowed from the recent British-led European spin about referendum) that along with pretty much the same old Constitution imposed by Westminster, and an executive council that in many ways replicates the problem of unelected privy councillors, still includes state governors… imposed by the crown)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 