Donna Bugat

Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: re I have been diagnosed with recurrent cancer after prolonged & life threatening stress & distress caused by Murdoch family illegally trying to hide they trafficked me as a small child to British & Australian Fremantle naval & intelligence services family, before illegally trying to stop my ‘Mothers Day’ 2006 jury lawsuits in UK incl High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008, that stood in way of their BskyB bid (& their undeclared conflict of interest) & led to torture & attempted murder etc of me, before Times henchman Lord Marlesford then tabled ‘Parliament Square’ not so ‘Private members bill’ in 2011 to try & hide I had also for example ‘won’ HQ11X00563 while Ms Glass (now Victorian Ombudsman) & Frederic Michel (now French President Macron comms chief) were committing perjury in Leveson etc before Brexit, in the knowledge I do not need to give… reasons in any court for refusing to stay adopted & to receive $1.4 billion dollars compensation to help fund transformational change in legal landscape of ‘International Law’ with International Civil Court with choice of juries that could be based in Jerusalem (12.04.2023)

My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.

It is self evident I need to be able to ‘officially’ use my own identity to have the best chance while going through further medical treatment for what is now recurrent cancer. It is now literally criminal for media barons (who btw are curiously all male ?) to try and hide behind the facade of what is called ‘adoption’ to try and hide vulnerable children are also being trafficked.

I was sent 12000 miles away from my friends and own family in Australia because I refused to go along with being trafficked as a small child by the Murdoch family to the British and Australian Fremantle naval and intelligence services.

I do very much support vulnerable children having the stability of longer term placements. This cannot however be at the expense of proper legal scrutiny with court orders, that are actually legally reviewable, and regardless of where a vulnerable child lives. The fact is an adult is legally entitled to automatically age out of any court order made about care arrangements, when we were a child, that we no longer agree with as adults, just like people can get married in one country and divorced in another. In the same way, it is usual to officially recognise someone is married or divorced, it is not legally possible to ‘officially’ hide from someone the fact they are ‘officially’ labeled ‘adopted’ when even that label may be being used to hide something else.

The Murdoch family have used the fact I was trafficked by them to leverage influence with politicians, and avoid any genuine legal scrutiny of the lack of any checks and balances and safeguards of draconian adoption legislation, that can very easily be used to traffic vulnerable children.

The Murdoch family admit they were writing stories literally inside New Scotland Yard, which is how the BBC came to illegally publish this one sided lie about Mothers Day 2006 that was hiding the Murdoch matriach:

I never saw any member of the Murdoch family stand in Parliament Square, Central London, defending peaceful freedom of expression by defenceless civilians, because the Murdoch family publicly grandstanding promoting endless war, they never personally enlist to fight on any front line.

The true legal reality is someone labeled ‘adopted’ by others as a vulnerable child does not need to give… reasons for refusing to be forced to stay ‘adopted’ just like people who want to stay adopted do not need to give reasons. There does however need to be a clear process where a decision to refuse to stay adopted is recorded, which can be done through either a Habeas Corpus Court Order or permanent stay of an adoption court order or an unopposed Default Judgement, all of which apply in my own case.

It”s fair to say I don’t trust the Murdoch family, and their lawyers who knew what was going on with BskyB:

I remember there was an attempt on my life in the Middle East in the real 1984 while the man who posed as my godfather was Director General of ASIO, in Australia, before the so called journalist Murdoch secured citizenship in the United States on 4th September 1985.

It’s strongly arguable Murdoch wanted United States citizenship so he would not be extradited anywhere else, regardless of what he did:

The attempt on for example 4th September 2006 to try and cover up the unprecedented Mothers Day 26th March 2006 civil jury lawsuit:

The chilling…. lie was there was no CCTV in the corridor I was running from to try and get help:

I am literally being forced against my will to stay adopted .

The reason the ‘Mothers Day’ civil jury lawsuit from 26th March 2006 in the UK arose was because the Murdoch family had me unlawfully arrested to hide the Murdoch matriarch was directly involved in trafficking me to the British and Australian Fremantle naval and intelligence services family. It’s obviously not a co-incidence that Murdoch et al sought to ‘disappear’ me on 4th September 2006 etc.

The Murdoch family have repeatedly used intelligence services for their own personal business interests, including over the Iraq War, which is why a former head of MI6 sits on their Times board too.

It was obviously never legally possible for the Australian governments to say they were not involved, because the fact it was however anyone looks at it, about the fact I had been trafficked with their knowledge, regardless of whether they want to hide behind the label of ‘adoption’ or not, remained the same in any country. It was politicians who illegally used the facade of ‘adoption’ to illegally try and say I was not an Australian citizen, when I was in the UK.

The British and Australian governments illegally tried to spin a groundhog day of a legal ‘red herring’ of ‘Ziliberberg’ from 4th May 2004, against me.

The British government used the now ‘wild camping’ Tim Morshead along with the now Lord Pannick to try and distract from my Mothers Day 26th March 2006 lawsuit where Brian was obviously an interested party. They illegally failed to mention the British House of Lords Hansard from 23rd May 2000, articulated the British Parliament had an agreement to ban all peaceful protest, before they tried to do that on 23rd May 2006, when I was in Parliament Square, Central London campaigning with Brian. It was a British judge called Nicholas Bratza (a President of ECHR) who adjudicated in the very poorly reasoned Ziliberberg case (4th May 2004) at the ECHR to give a false impression that an absence of authorisations for demonstrations automatically met a criminal threshold shortly before ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was enacted, to be used against Brian first, that I helped force off the statute books.

While I was in Parliament Square, Central London, it was common for the politicians et al to have me unlawfully arrested (ie: Mothers Day 2006, State Opening 25th May 2012, and on 16th January 2012 and the political facade of the PRSR Act 2011) so the all male media barons or state broadcaster – Murdoch was publishing directly from the ‘press office’ in New Scotland Yard anyway- could publish their propaganda while I was illegally detained, and to stop me getting to the High Court first with civil jury lawsuits.

It is a matter of legal fact my… adopted name was illegally leaked on Mothers Day 2006 in a false ‘news’ report… AFTER and despite it was agreed, before I was released, it was a civil jury lawsuit, which it always was.

The government were often trying to ‘Zilliberberg’ me including by illegally issuing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons on Friday 23rd March 2006 for an illegal court hearing on 26th March 2007 when the ’summons’ were placed sine die after I complained, when I was there by happenstance for Steve Jago (because I hadn’t received any summons) and was illegally charged along with Brian with the ‘landmark’ alleged Contempt of Court to distract from that. My appeal over the original malicious ‘White Rose’ prosecution against me on 22nd February 2006 was illegally stayed (while others went ahead) before I was like in Ziliberberg not invited to court (ie: advised in advance of a hearing in November 2007) The malicious prosecutions against me, just sought to hide the High Court civil jury lawsuit from Mothers Day 2006.

My civil jury lawsuits and High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 stood in the way of the Murdoch family bid for BskyB because they obviously had an undeclared conflict of interest. It was the facts of my own case that led to the torture and attempted murder of me because my lawsuits stood in the way of the Murdoch’s BskyB bid.

It is a legal impossibility to blame me for being trafficked as a small child.

The British politicians arranged for what I proved was the red herring of the Ziliberberger case, in the ECHR involving the British judge Nicholas Bratza, they… planned to use for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK:

A Mike Schwartz from Bindmans Solicitors (old man Bindman didn’t want to give back his recently acquired knighthood) was unwilling to get the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me but was still willing to along with Liberty instead grandstand at the ECHR with the same Judge Nicolas Bratza in… 2009 !! about the… red herring of Ziliberberg at the ECHR, again involving a single example in a case, whereas of course I campaigned all the time with Brian so I did properly notify on 3rd March 2006 because I did not want to be getting harassed by the government et al, all the time.

In my own ‘SOCPA’ case (ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 now repealed was essentially a cut and paste job from the United States ‘Rico’ Act) the government just did not like my once in a lifetime, ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 notification because I pointed out I could campaign on my own and with Brian and for as long as there was government, and that they could not impose (the facade of) conditions on me with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 because I had no… intention to do, and could not possibly do any of the things they listed to attract ‘conditions’. In fact on 9th March 2006 the MET had said in writing there would be no further action against me, because of my notification on 3rd March 2006, so I did conclusively prove that the government would abuse people even if you did notify because they would simply make up excuses for refusing to authorise because they always… intended to illegally try and criminalise anyone they wanted to in Parliament Square, Central London.

The distraction of the omni-shambles then about who claims to own which part of Parliament Square, Central London was always easily resolved because it is legally quite straightforward that -all- of Parliament Square, Central London should be returned to public ownership in perpetuity.

This is why the former Australian Labour PM and now Australian Ambassador to the United States collects a $1.4 billion dollar brown envelope laundered through his partners company, over my being illegally denied legal representation in a case also involving the torture and attempted murder of me:

The alleged ‘land dispute’ was essentially a contrived distraction that was only sent back to the High Court to avoid it… controversially ending up in for example the ECHR:

1st July 2011 – 13th July 2011 – 14th July 2011 – 17th July 2011 – 27th January 2012 – 4th May 2012

It is not a co-incidence that Murdoch’s Times henchman Lord Marlesford was trying to push through the distraction of a ‘Private members bill’ about Parliament Square, at the same time the Murdoch family had to withdraw from their BskyB bid in July 2011.

The first time Murdoch henchman Lord Marlesford had sought to bring a not so ‘Private Members Bill’ that was… intentionally really trying to hide their lies behind Hansard. It is unlawful to… intentionally use Hansard to try and lie, and in particular about live court proceedings.

The British House of Lords do not have to bother with being decent and civilised and polite, or acting lawfully towards civilians because they aren’t elected by the public, yet can hold any Ministerial office too, which inevitably attracts all sorts of cronyism and corruption.

The House of Lords kept lying about what were in fact live proceedings in HQ11X00563 involving for example the Leader of Westminster Council who later decamped to Switzerland and the United States (which also further proves they were illegally trying to legislate to illegally try and circumvent civil jury lawsuits):

The Murdoch henchman Lord Marlesford was however illegally misleading the British Parliament (or more importantly the public) with his ‘Parliament Square’ Private Members Bill on 1st & 14th July 2011, by lying to the British Parliament and in Hansard about live proceedings in for example HQ11X00563 (and then continuing to use the ‘Private Members Bill to on 27th January 2012, also lie about live court proceedings about Parliament Square, Central London, which was when I also discovered when I went to the High Court that there was no injunction protecting the governments phoney ‘Democracy Village’ campaign on 16th January 2012 which New Scotland Yard was ‘briefing’ the Sun about on 16th January 2012) which were then illegally stayed after 27th January 2012 without my agreement until 4th May 2012 because I had already really ‘won’ HQ11X00563 in January 2011, before the political facade of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 tried to claim it was 4th May 2012 (the old red herring of Ziliberberg)

The many ‘troubles’ with a Lord Ramsbotham were that he was illegally trying to ‘sidestep’ we were a… static campaign and not a march, while he did know torture etc had simply been transferred from Northern Ireland to the mainland:

There was actually a failure by the MET Chief to hand over the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me (after Murdoch had essentially published threats on Sky News Live):

I didn’t find it all surprising that Stephenson resigned (It was… witnessed, I was threatened by him… before the torture and attempted murder of me)

A Ms Glass repeatedly committed perjury because she was acting for Murdoch all along:

There were the same Mayoral candidates of Livingstone, Paddick (now another Lord from the MET) and Johnson in the Mayoral elections of May 2008 and May 2012.

On 19th July 2009 ( on the anniversary of my being kidnapped from inside a court during live proceedings in a case on 19th July 2007 where Murdoch et al had sought to ’suffragette’ me) Murdoch’s Sky News live literally published a hit piece (which was really an agreement between politicians, remembering there was already at that time, the Tory Mayor of London Johnson who while also being a paid journalist at the Barclay Brothers Telegraph was also boss of the top cops) to ‘remove’ us without any caveats on how that was done that led to the torture and attempted murder of me.

An unsolicited confession of sorts is sent to me in the midst of ‘Leveson’:

The legal reality is I then ‘won’ for example HQ12X03464 over 16th January 2012 (after Murdoch’s henchman et al publicly expressed on 27th January 2012 while this time hiding behind Hansard, they had thought they “had shot the fox” which I reasonably perceived as a… further threat, because there was already the cover up of the torture and attempted murder of me) the government could not provide a single basic disclosure of their reasons for 16th January 2012, that would mean I would need to provide any reasons in response. In fact I had submitted a Judicial Review over the PRSR Act 2011 on 16th December 2011, the government illegally failed to respond to… before acting against me on 16th January 2011 which could not simply be explained away by the pretence of giving an injunction to protect their own phoney ‘Democracy Village etc’) campaign, who then followed by submitting a Judicial Review) which even if that had been true their own ‘Democracy Village’ had an injunction on 16th January 2012 (which they did, but publicly lied about having too) would not have excused the government failing to respond to my application for Judicial Review of the PRSR Act 2011, before acting against me. At the very least the government were legally obliged to give me reasons for refusing to respond, before acting against me.

The Murdoch family have never signed up for peace:

The Murdoch family profited once again from my being forced to leave my own home in Breizh, France on 28th June 2019, exactly one hundred years after the Treaty of Versailles. (I flew Air France from Brest to Charles De Gaulle and then on to Hong Kong, where I changed to Qantas and flew to Melbourne, in Australia during the Brexit panjandrum, where everyone has a different interpretation of whatever that was supposed to mean)

The facts of my own case do show why I reasonably believe it is necessary to have the transformational change in the legal landscape of International Law with an International Civil Court with the choice of juries, which is what I intend to use my compensation to help fund.

A kinder evolution is possible.

This statement is true.

Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)