Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: FAO Chief of Victoria Police & the serious conflict of interest & illegal practice etc of politicians et al who illegally withheld an adoption ‘court order’ while I was in my own… home in Breizh, France, while using draconian adoption legislation to try & make me… homeless !! incl. in Australia because politicians et al have always illegally been trying to avoid being named as… defendants in proceedings in another country, outside originating state in Australia over draconian adoption legislation (13.05.2022)
FAO Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police
Re: Legal & Prosecutions Specialist Branch/Prosecutions Division | Legal Services Department | Victoria Police
1.
The Chief Commissioner of Victorian Police is clearly fully aware that the reason I was unlawfully arrested inside and outside the County Court in Melbourne on 21st December 2021 is because of the illegal practice of politicians and courts withholding my adoption ‘court order’ from me while I was for example living in my own… home !! in Breizh, France specifically because they did not want it overtly challenged along with draconian legislation in courts other than in the originating state.
The practice of politicians and courts routinely withholding adoption ‘court orders’ from people labelled ‘adopted’ is absolutely… unlawful. The politicians cannot legally legislate that because someone is labelled ‘adopted’ that person is not legally entitled to, like in any other legal case, an ‘authorised’ copy of the supposed ‘court order’ directly from the original court, regardless of whether or not the person labelled ‘adopted’ is living in Australia or not.
It is not something someone labelled ‘adopted’ needs to… ‘apply’ to have. It is the absolute right of someone labelled ‘adopted’ to be provided with an authorised copy by the court, of the supposed adoption ‘court order’ at no expense to the person labelled ‘adopted’.
The point is politicians and public officials are illegally using an adoption ‘court order’ and draconian adoption legislation to intentionally make someone labeled ‘adopted’ who has my own… home, homeless !!
There is nothing remotely flippant about my quite properly wanting to live in my own… home in Breizh, France with my own identity, so I can peacefully move on with… my own life.
There is obviously clear… harm caused by politicians et al illegally stopping me living in my own home in Breizh, France, and moving on with my own life.
It is so clear that what is universally missing is an International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries that could be based in Jerusalem.
(One of the biggest criticisms of draconian adoption legislation is how politicians and public officials encourage any adult to jump on the bandwagon and claim they are discriminated against if they cannot adopt, a vulnerable child, as though someone who is labelled ‘adopted’ is expected to exist to please anyone but ourselves. It all… distracts from the fact some labelled adopted is being discriminated against, by draconian adoption legislation that is of itself unlawful because it is discriminatory)
2.
The politicians and public officials in the State of Victoria have illegally been misrepresenting they can or do speak on behalf of or instead of me with regard to the adoption ‘court order’ about me (Case 352 May 1963) to hide the true legal position is they have actually been illegally trying to avoid acknowledging the true legal position they are defendants with very serious conflicts of interest.
3.
The lifelong adoption ‘court order’ could not actually be construed by any politician or public officials as an implied or implicit ‘contractual’ arrangement that in labelling me ‘adopted’ could impose any obligation of any kind on me to at any time acknowledge and recognise the validity of any draconian adoption legislation.
The politicians and news media scrum knowingly publish all sorts of deliberately misleading information about what they call ‘adoption’ that is a completely… politicised policy, because what they are distracting from and cannot do is publicly hold up a lifelong adoption ‘court order’ as some kind of valid legal instrument they can impose on someone labelled ‘adopted’.
The politicians and public officials do not ask people to… stop and think what is an actual adoption ‘court order’ and what does it say and mean, and what are the real life consequences that are only imposed on the person labelled ‘adopted’.
4.
There is a very serious legal problem because the State of Victoria and/or Federal government have not wanted to be named as defendants in my case in… a foreign court.
That explains why the former Australian Foreign Minister Downer was falsely trying to claim in 2006, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, that I am not an Australian citizen, because he knew politicians and public officials were trying to avoid being named as the originating state/country as defendants in the UK over the adoption ‘court order’ and draconian adoption legislation.
(I was after all forced to sell my home in the UK, from where I was exiled)
It also explains all the political ducking and diving over my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 2006 in the UK (including the fact of why would I need another one in Australia ?) and the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me.
(Of course, no civil jury would ever believe it was mere co-incidence that a government who had already been found by a court to have illegally destroyed independent video footage of what was found to be one unlawful violent attack on me, then refused to hand over the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me on the same date, just several years later)
The more localised or national ‘landmark’ cases in the UK involving me, highlighting the legal obligation on… courts to make, keep and publish accurate and contemporaneous records of proceedings, along with the double dealing between politicians and the monarchy over how they would like to divide up public land in Parliament Square (the monarchy obviously knew about because they did after all sign the defective legislation) obviously didn’t age well in HQ11X00563.
6.
The politicians and public officials in Australia are not legally entitled or able to comment on or question my health because… their own starting point is their bipartisan political ‘policy’ (regardless of how unlawful any reasonable and responsible law abiding adult would know it is) is to cover up the political torture and attempted murder of an Australian citizen.
This does not legally absolve politicians of their legal obligations to ensure I have the access I want to medical treatment of my choosing for multiple auto immune and related illnesses etc.
The true legal position is politicians are at the very least, legally obliged to provide me with Disability Pension in my own home in Breizh, France until such time as… they have argued against any further compensation before a civil jury.
The politicians and public officials are legally obliged to act within pre-action protocol.
7.
The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police knows and is legally obliged to confirm in writing by email there are no legal grounds to use an adoption ‘court order’ to refuse to issue me a new Australian passport in my… own identity. It is a very strange legal situation that a state can use draconian adoption legislation to unlawfully interfere in a what people are led to believe is a federal competency with regard to passports that in reality like healthcare only highlights unreasonable and unworkable ‘systems’. The Australian federal politicians similarly intended while I was in Breizh, France, to unlawfully refuse to issue me with an Australian passport in my own identity in France, based on draconian adoption legislation that is claimed to be the sole purview of the originating state, Victoria in Australia.
There are no legal grounds for politicians to use an adoption ‘court order’ and draconian adoption legislation for… political purposes that include refusing to issue an Australian passport in my own identity and trying and restrict the freedom of movement I would otherwise have if I was not labelled ‘adopted’.
(It’s fair to say I am the one person the politicians in Westminster would not welcome as an Australian Ambassador in London)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 