Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria Case 352: In the matter of my universal order all courts legally obliged to automatically discharge adoptions, when they don’t have informed consent from adult adopted people (22.10.2020)


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MELBOURNE                      CASE 352






... 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 confirming the discharge of my own ‘adoption’ by email, because I have never notified the County Court of my giving informed consent for it to continue.


The universal legal reality is that… any court, anywhere is legally obliged to automatically discharge any adoption when they do not have informed consent from the adult adopted person for it to continue.


The onus is on any and all courts, anywhere, to automatically discharge adoptions when they do not have informed consent from an adopted adult for it to continue. 


There is not a properly constituted court anywhere in the world, who could possibly argue otherwise.


(The legal reality is any foreign embassy in Australia from a country involved in adoptions would not have any legal basis to bring a legal challenge in any court in Australia or their own courts, or elsewhere, to say informed consent from adult adopted people was not necessary for an adoption to continue

Australia could not have adoption agreements with countries who do not automatically discharge adoptions when they do not have informed consent from adult adopted people for it to continue)


The universal legal reality of the due process of the peace and harmony of the rule of law, properly reverses any ‘bureaucratic’ burden there is no legal basis to impose on an adopted adult, who has not given their informed consent for their adoption to continue, and in particular when some people may not even have been informed by anyone, they were adopted.


(refer ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, which was repealed in 2011, because I could not possibly have needed to ‘notify’ or have the ‘permission’ of any… judge, before peacefully campaigning


Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] EWHC 3019 (Admin) (30 November 2007))


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


The Swedish government (for example) could not possibly argue their legislative blanket ban that does not “allow” the “cancellation of adoption” takes precedence, over the legal reality of needing the informed consent of adult adopted people for adoptions to continue.


refer "IV: Swedish law does not allow the cancellation of an adoption")


It is self evident to any reasonable, rational and responsible adult, I obviously need to be able to exercise my fundamental right to as an adult have my own adoption discharged, because I have never given my informed consent for it to continue, to also be able to exercise my inextricably linked, legal right to give my informed consent to healthcare, in any meaningful way.


3. Adult adopted people who have not given informed consent for their adoption to continue, should then be able to:


a) make our own choices about citizenships


b) and where necessary receive any social security payments, including payments for social housing from the originating state/s, or where the court order was made, regardless of whether we are living in the country of origin or not, so our lives are not unnecessarily further disrupted, while we make any necessary transitions in our lives.


c) have the option of fully comprehensive travel and insurance cover with any excesses, for pre-existing health conditions, paid by the originating state/s, or where the court order was made.


4. 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, 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 in Australia)


This properly redresses human and legal issues surrounding the ‘legal limbo’ experienced by being vulnerable because my informed consent as adults, for the adoption to continue, was ’sidestepped’ that in practise then made me an eternal refugee and exile, while non refoulement was breached.


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) universal order (that also concludes any of my own unprecedented ’satellite litigation’ including in the UK)


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 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.