Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I am legally entitled to have my own identity ‘officially’ acknowledged free of charge now so I can properly benefit from best medical treatment for recurrent cancer etc (my own legal case conclusively proves I could never be legally obliged & it unfairly has & does put me in life threatening danger to claim I need to give… reasons for refusing to be forced to stay what is only ‘officially’ called ‘adopted’ when a) it has always been outside my control to for example get CCTV of torture & attempted murder of me incl in a timely manner because my jury lawsuit/s stand/stood in way of Murdoch BskyB deal because Murdoch family trafficked me as a small child, while b) people who want to stay ‘adopted’ do not need to give reasons for wanting to stay ‘adopted’, that all highlights why now it is only acceptable to have an International Register within an International Civil Court with choice of juries) (14.04.2023)
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 necessary for me to ‘officially’ have my own identity to enjoy now so I can properly benefit from the best medical treatment for recurrent cancer. It is only spiteful and malicious to continue with what are only excuses such as ‘officially’ needing… reasons to not be forced to stay ‘adopted’.
This is my real identity and I should never have been forced to publicly defend myself because false ‘news’ reports were maliciously published in the UK:
The Victorian Victims of Crime Commissioner is legally obliged to put my witness statement on the court record because the adoption order is “void ab initio” because it is and has been outside my control and has only continued to put me in danger, to produce the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, including in a timely manner, because I was trafficked by the Murdoch family as a small child. The fact the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, was not given to me, including in a timely manner, which could have been done by email does of itself constitute a criminal offence, because it was always my decision what to do with that CCTV that should never have in any event been in the hands of someone who was known to repeatedly threaten me and cause me actual harm.
This is one of my own many banners which was one of the banners that resonated with most people from across Europe, that was stolen by Murdoch et al (of course Scarlett now ‘officially’ works for the Murdoch family at ‘the Times’)
There are many politicians and civil servants who have financially benefited from the ‘patronage’ of the Murdoch family.
It is self evident it is unfair and cannot be legal to claim people who do not want to be forced to stay what is ‘officially’ called ‘adopted’ need to give… reasons for not staying adopted, while people who wish to stay adopted do not need to give reasons for that.
It’s judicial woo like below that patronizingly and arrogantly intends to suggest it is beyond the capacity of ordinary people to understand the peace and harmony of the rule of law, most people manage to live by every single day, that tends to bring the legal system into disrepute and indicate it might be better if judges were appointed by juries:
A judge fails in his/her most fundamental responsibilities if they are unable to explain the law, or admit when it is the legislation that is the problem.
My own case proves that the false/excusive premise that I need to give reasons to complete strangers for not wanting to ‘officially’ be called ‘adopted’ has actually put me in harms way, because it has always been outside my control to get the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me including in a timely manner because my lawsuit/s stood in the way of the Murdoch family BskyB deal because the Murdoch family trafficked me as a small child.
I am not legally responsible for people who never had any legal right/claim/authority to have the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me in the first place, refusing to unconditionally and in a timely manner hand it over to me which could have easily been done by email (I had a High Court Order for email) where it was always my decision what I would do with it :
A question is how CCTV I publicly and properly asked for in and from Westminster Magistrates Court in front of the Crown Prosecution Service ever came to be in the hands of other people, who had no authority or legal claim to have it. I would have had to go through the process of having a professional confirm the authenticity of the CCTV and that it had not been tampered with and the chain of people who it had passed through so it was clear the perpetrators never intended for me to have or keep even any copy of the CCTV because it isn’t actually legally possible to explain how it ended up in the hands of the person who claimed to have something.
In this different CCTV below from another incident we had already proved in a Crown court, the CCTV was illegally edited to remove audio, while independent video footage including of a hallway it was claimed had no CCTV was illegally seized and destroyed.
This is why I am wary of going behind closed doors and particularly with strange males I do not know, and also have a reasonable belief that was when they originally intended to murder me:
The predatory attack on me above which intended to terrorize me, was proved in a court of law, to be absolutely criminal. I am not known as someone who will willingly go behind closed doors with strange males I do not know.
It is very straightforward that it is the…. excuses of needing… reasons to not be forced to stay ‘adopted’ that put me in danger in the first place
It is arguable that the global multi-billion dollar adoption industry (because an industry that is a meat market trading in the most vulnerable children used as trophies is all it currently is) has been completely corrupted by the likes of the Murdoch family. More generally, intelligence services continue to bring themselves into serious dispute being so closely associated with the Murdoch family. The Murdoch family have never enlisted in the wars they endlessly promote and profit from, and they only treat the lives of vulnerable children ‘officially’ registered as ‘adopted’ as a game so they can cynically portray a facade of ‘philanthropy’ purely for taxation purposes.
The reason I was never in favour of getting married, so was married in one country and happily divorced in another country is because I was trafficked as a small child which is ‘officially’ called ‘adopted’ but of course is not the truth, is because I did not want another piece of government issued paper that forced me to give…reasons. The fact I properly notified within (now repealed) ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK because I did not want to waste my time arguing with the government about who I was campaigning with or what I was peacefully campaigning about, actually worked against me, because the government illegally refused to ‘authorize’ simply because I pointed out they could not impose conditions on me because I had no intention of committing and could not possibly commit any of the alleged harms that could attract conditions which revealed it was the legislation that was malicious.
The fact it is and has been outside my control to produce the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me cannot legally be used… against me to ‘officially’ force me to stay ‘adopted’.
The reality is there is and has been so much discrimination and corruption within what is still just an… industry called ‘adoption’ that however it manifests itself through legislation anywhere there needs to be the international oversight of an International Register within an International Civil Court with the choice of juries:
It is simply unacceptable to continue to put the most vulnerable children at risk by not having an International Civil Court with the choice of juries.
It is also necessary to point out that people who are officially registered as ‘adopted’ cannot possibly be excluded from having court orders that are routinely used in other legal cases, like to have a permanent stay, a default judgement and so on. It seems to be the case that when governments do not inform someone they are adopted that people who find themselves in that also discriminatory situation could legitimately if they so choose, make a valid claim they have been trafficked.
An example of the revolving doors working for the Murdoch family at the relevant time, who try and pass themselves off as “advertising” to try and distract from the ‘inconvenient truth and reality of harming ordinary civilians :
It is also clear that it cannot be illegal for someone ‘officially’ labelled ‘adopted’ to notify a court by email of refusing to be forced to stay adopted because the use of emails for what is ‘officially’ called ‘adoption’ is used in for example Ukraine.
What there really needs to be, regardless of the myriad of draconian ‘adoption’ legislation that still provides a green light for child and human traffickers, is an International Register within an International Civil Court with the choice of juries.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 