Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors (Case 352 etc): Premier Andrews continues to act unlawfully, intentionally putting my health & life at serious risk, while I am trying to recover from a major cancer operation, after he has already illegally concealed inextricably linked torture & attempted murder of me in UK & then had me unlawfully arrested in County Court, Melbourne on 21st December 2021 not because I had done anything wrong, but because it doesn’t suit Premier politically that he has no recognised defence in law in any court, to my renouncing adoption & political sleight of hand of draconian adoption legislation that in Victoria illegally seeks to remove legal standing/locus standii from someone labelled adopted & incl Premier falsifying records to make it appear I own property in Australia to hide he is out of political spite illegally stopping me living in my own home in Breizh, France while intentionally trying to make me homeless in Australia, all of which means Premier knows he has been legally obliged to enter into mediation over compensation too (21.12.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression, and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
There is a very serious legal situation because Premier Andrews continues to unlawfully and intentionally put my health and life at serious risk following my having a major medical operation I am trying to recover from, and after he has already illegally concealed the inextricably linked premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me in the UK.
The legal reality is the Premier of Victoria in Australia has been legally obliged to provide in writing to me (by email would have been fine) a recognised defence in law to oppose my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation. The fact he may not like or agree with what I have said and done in doing that, does not absolve him of his legal obligations to provide a recognised defence… prior to court proceedings. This is not a legal obligation that was discharged by the Premier staging a phoney ‘Inquiry’ to try and buy time instead.
The Premier has failed to fulfil his legal obligations because he knows he has in the absence of providing a recognised defence in law… prior to legal proceedings, been legally obliged to enter into mediation over compensation.
The legal reality that the Premier does not have a recognised defence in law to my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation is evidenced by him repeatedly acting in bad faith etc to:
a) refuse without lawful excuse and in a timely manner to provide me with a recognised defence in law to oppose my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation which he could have done by email and needed to be done… prior ro legal proceedings
b) unlawfully conceal the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me in the UK that was about illegally trying to i) avoid civil jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation ii) to try and hide the existence of my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day on 26th March 2006 in the UK for the same reasons
My High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK can also be used to confirm my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation
c) have me unlawfully arrested when I went to the County Court in Melbourne, Australia, on 21st December 2021, not because I had done anything wrong but because it did not suit the Premier politically for me to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
The Premier also knew at that time he had falsified government records to make it appear I own property in Australia because he has illegally been trying to hide he was maliciously intentionally trying to make me homeless, including during the time he was staging a phoney adoption ‘Inquiry’ and during a global pandemic. The political message during the height of the global pandemic was for people to go home and stay home, unless of course you happen to be renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation because then the Premier just wanted to make you homeless instead. The draconian adoption legislation is not designed around health because even when I was diagnosed with cancer the Premier has still put what suits him politically before my health despite knowing it is absolutely unlawful to put my health at any risk by using adoption or draconian adoption legislation.
The Premier would illegally and disproportionately and without my having legal representation or trial stop me even having a passport in my own identity so I can travel and live in my own home purely out of political spite because it is already known he has no recognised defence in law to oppose my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
The politicians are the ones who say people labelled adopted have to go back to the court that did the dirty deed if we want to extricate ourselves from such a reckless legal quagmire created by draconian adoption legislation, and yet when you quietly do that, the politicians have you unlawfully arrested in the actual court for no other reason than it doesn’t suit them politically for someone labelled adopted to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation. It was not lawful for Premier Andrews to have me arrested at the County Court because he had no recognised defence in law ro argue in court. I was entirely reasonably trying to go home ro my own home in Briezh, France because I am not voluntarily in Victoria or Australia.
It is political window dressing, including illegally reversing the onus to say someone labelled adopted must pay money to and apply to the County Court for a discharge of their adoption because politicians claim the person labelled adopted must justify to the satisfaction of complete strangers in court a personal decision to not be adopted. The politicians also purport the court has the authority to refuse a discharge which is not true because there are no circumstances where adoption is the only option.
The true legal reality is someone labelled adopted only has to… notify a politician and a court if they wish of the person’s own decision to renounce adoption and draconian adoption legislation which cannot be refused and nor can conditions be imposed on that being done because it is not possible to cause any harm by renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation. It only possible to cause harm by arbitrarily imposing adoption and draconian adoption legislation.
(The British government illegally changed what was supposed to be a notification process to in practice an abuse of process of an application instead in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 I helped force off the statute books in the UK because politicians et al could also not legally impose conditions because it was not possible to in advance, commit any supposed harms that would attract conditions)
I am by renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation, actually asserting I do have legal standing/locus standii over what politicians have done by labelling me adopted with draconian adoption legislation.
The political sleight of hand in draconian adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia is focused upon the fact politicians have essentially purported they can legislate away the legal concept of legal standing/locus standii for someone labelled adopted so we are not fully informed of our real rights and entitlements, which is absolutely unlawful. The politicians legislative sleight of hand is illegally used to circumvent for example the right of people to know they are adopted which is still not considered mandatory, and the right to have a copy of the court order provided to us by courts so we can challenge it, including while living overseas, all of which is not considered mandatory either. There is not even any pretence of any due process for anyone labelled adopted in Victoria who lives overseas.
Premier Andrews and the County Court did know on 21st December 2021 there are no legal grounds to say I had to return to Australia because there could only be a court hearing in the County Court.
The fact there is no genuine due process which is seriously disrespectful and discriminatory. The prolonged stress and distress has had a shocking effect on my physical health resulting in my being diagnosed with cancer, and yet the Premier has completely ignored the fact it is absolutely unlawful to continue to cause me stress and distress that adversely affects my health, because that does not happen not suit the Premier politically.
The disrespectful attitude of politicians is dishonourable.
There is no point, legal or otherwise for politicians to continue to against my will arbitrarily impose the label of adopted on me, along with draconian adoption legislation.
I only needed to at most provide a witness statement, which I have done, the Premier did not ask to be countersigned by a health professional or by someone authorised to sign statutory declarations, which had I been asked to do, with regard to my renouncing adoption and draconian adoption legislation, I could easily have done.
The Premier is legally obliged to immediately enter into mediation over compensation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
)formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 