Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria Case 352: In the matter of my universal injunction to stop my ‘adoption’ over which I have never given my informed consent as a child or adult (23.10.2020)
... my name is donna...
IN THE MATTER OF AN INJUNCTION IN CASE 352 IN THE COUNTY COURT IN MELBOURNE, TO STOP THE ADOPTION OVER WHICH I HAVE NEVER GIVEN MY INFORMED CONSENT AS A CHILD OR ADULT
by Donna Bugat
Date of Document: 5th October 2020
Filed by: Donna Bugat
Prepared by: Donna Bugat
1. My name in Donna Bugat and I am an Australian citizen who was born in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia on 10 February 1962.
2. I am legally notifying courts of my universal injunction to stop my ‘adoption’ over which I have never given my informed consent, as either a child or adult.
3. In practise, my injunction means that according to private international law, no public official anywhere, will ever be able to claim:
a) my adoption in Case 352 in the State of Victoria continues,
b) that I have to pay an arbitrarily decided sum of money to public officials or indeed anyone else, to exercise my absolute right to as an adult refuse to give informed consent for my adoption to continue.
4. I do give my informed consent for anyone to have a stamped court copy of my injunction, because adopted people do need to know our informed consent is a very important universal right.
5. I am claiming $3 million dollars in costs from the State of Victoria, who will also pay the costs of any court issuing their stamped copy of my injunction to send to me, by email, is fine.
6. The simple legal reality is that without being able to exercise my absolute right to as an adult not give my informed consent for the adoption to continue, it is impossible for me to give inextricably linked informed consent that is in any way meaningful, regarding health care.
N.B: My personal view is:
a) in the 'inexplicable' absence of legal representation, including that is independent, which should be mandatory for all adopted children and adults in what is always such a serious legal matter before the courts that should never be adversarial for adopted people
b) courts do at the very least have a legal obligation to politely send out a non adversarial questionnaire to adopted people before we are adults, inquiring if we would like to continue the adoption as adults (it should never have been possible for people to not even know they were adopted) acknowledging that if we don’t choose to give our informed consent to our adoption continuing as adults, it will at no cost to ourselves, be automatically discontinued upon our becoming adults, along with proper provision for social welfare and agreed suitable housing being provided during the transition, if requested, regardless of whether the adopted person is living in Australia, or not (because there are national, and international adoptions which like mine have often been hidden)
Children should also have a qualified right to discharge adoptions (which children would obviously need legal assistance to do) because despite the truth is anyone could be adopted, for any number of reasons, that does not of itself, provide legal grounds for an adoption to continue throughout their childhood and beyond, regardless of circumstances.
The courts can of course easily provide the courts confirmation of a discontinuance at no cost to the adopted person, by email, not least because in practise so many other government departments collect identifying information generated by the originating court, about adopted people too, because there has never genuinely been any privacy for an adopted person.
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.