Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors @ Supreme Court, Victoria, Australia: Re: I am legally entitled to written confirmation Supreme Court accepts a) I have… already lawfully & officially renounced obsolete County ’Court order’ (falsely premised on ‘adoption’ from the 28th May 1963 that should not have necessitated my needing to return to Victoria or Australia, or to go to County Court who lack/ed any legal authority/standing to oppose my adult decision on 21st December 2021 or to have me arrested without my having any legal representation or trial, because they disagreed with my making my own… adult decision that did not need their ‘permission’ that I was not & could not be charged, prosecuted or convicted of any ‘crime’ for doing before I was officially diagnosed with recurrent cancer) before b) I issue therefore simplified formal court proceedings against Murdoch family who trafficked me to intelligence services, building their ‘news’ empire out of retrospective 1984 legislation in Victoria, Australia, based on me that then led to retrospective legislation based on me in 2011 in the UK too (that was intended to cover up torture & attempted murder of me when a James Murdoch claimed to be in charge in the UK) (21.07.2023)
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 more than unreasonable the bullying and so on that goes into stopping an adult adoptee making our own adult decision. It beggars belief that the Murdoch family was trying to cover up the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK by demanding more retrospective legislation in the UK in 2011, to try and cover up what the retrospective 1984 legislation in Victoria, Australia was about.
It’s self evident the retrospective use of 1984 legislation purporting to be about ‘adoption’ doesn’t make any legal sense in practice, because instead of being about helping adoptees, it’s all about protecting the ‘reputations’ of the anything but ‘philanthropic’ Murdoch family et al. Of course, I am not entirely sure what the Murdoch family consider their ‘reputation’ to be, because their own idea of ‘gender equality’ is for example, page three of their beloved ‘Sun’.
However, the reality is the County Court lack/ed any legal authority/legal standing to oppose my officially renouncing an obsolete ‘court order’ falsely premised on ‘adoption’ and could not have me arrested because they disagreed with my making my own adult decision. I could not lawfully be arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for making my own lawful adult decision, that it is not a crime for me to do.
I don’t see how the Supreme Court could revisit the fact/’decision’ the County Court did not actually put me on trial for making my own adult… decision to lawfully and officially renounce the ‘adoption court order’. My case highlights just how unreasonable it is to have legislation that claims an adoptee is… expected !! to go through leaving our own family, friends and home in other country/ies to return to a state in Australia where we haven’t lived since being a teenager, to go through the political window dressing of a seriously onerous obstacle course in a court with an uncertain outcome, when we haven’t done anything ‘wrong’. It is not credible to say the legislation is drafted to help ‘adoptees’. And the politicians are no-where to be seen trying to defend such indefensible legislation, that so unnecessarily puts an… adoptee at a disadvantage. I didn’t have recurrent cancer before I returned but I have been put through so much, which I have consistently said is wrong.
There is no way I would ever have… voluntarily signed up to what passes itself off as ‘adoption’ that puts me at such a serious disadvantage, and is soooooo disrespectful.
It is a legal impossibility to see where the County court thought they had any legal standing of any kind because they are not biological family members and do not ‘represent’ anyone who posed as family members and have no legal authority to speak for or instead of me. The same goes for the overtly political ‘Adoption Information Service’ in the DOJ who despite clearly knowing my email address have never managed since July 2019 to send 1 single and complete copy of records they… claim they have but refuse without lawful excuse to hand over by email which would mean there could not be a dispute over what they claim to have handed over. The legal reality is if I was old enough to send 12000 miles away as a teenager, which could only be done in the manner it was, by using an ‘adoption court order’ against me, I should have been old enough to at last have been given a certified extract of the court records of the adoption to. It should have been my decision to choose to challenge those court records in a court in another country too.
The retrospective 1984 ‘adoption’ legislation is clearly unreasonable which is highlighted by ridiculously expecting ‘adoptees’ who live overseas to return to the original court which however anyone looks at it doesn’t really seem to serve any legitimate or useful purpose including the victim blaming going on with unlawfully arresting an adult adoptee for making my own lawful decision, I cannot be charged, prosecuted or convicted for doing.
It is clearly unlawful for the retrospective 1984 legislation to be used for the purposes of entrapment, because adoptees are not legally obliged to agree with whatever suits a court, where worse to is difficult to even determine the legal standing of the court because we are talking about the right of an adult to make our own decision. All there really needs to be, is an office that keeps a register of adult adoptees who have officially renounced adoption court orders, which I would fund with compensation owed because there needs to be an office that does actually help, support and encourage adult adoptees who officially renounce an adoption ‘court order’ that simply is not for every ‘adoptee’. There is currently a very serious legal problem at the moment, because there is no genuine ‘choice’ for an ‘adoptee’. There has always been a lack of balance because of so many competing interests trying to improperly ‘influence’ an ‘adoptee.
The Murdoch family henchman Lord Marlesford was at it YET again, demanding more legislation against me (I was the only person at that time in Parliament Square, Central London who was trafficked by the Murdoch family to the intelligence services, who was also having the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, illegally withheld from me):
I had properly asked for the CCTV through the… criminal court, so it should never have been in the possession of anyone who was implicated in or who had a conflict of interest in the torture and attempted murder of me.
I don’t think “complex” properly describes the torture and attempted murder of me. It was so cowardly to do the dirty deed and then be squeamish about my having possession of the CCTV to make my own choices, and of course have it for medical reasons too.
The political class may choose to work for the Murdoch family, instead of serving the public, but I do not work for the Murdoch family.
The Murdoch family were never seen practicing peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
I have already had to put up with being trafficked by the Murdoch family to the intelligence services and then being sent 12000 miles away as a teenager, only to have the Murdoch family clamouring for more !! legislation against me in the UK to try and cover up the torture and attempted murder of me. (It was a James Murdoch who claimed to be in charge in the UK at the time of the torture and attempted murder of me etc etc) They did know the 1984 legislation does not make any sense and that a civil jury in another country of adults could only have agreed I did not as an adult need to return to Victoria, Australia and go to the County Court to have anyone else’s ‘permission’ to make my own adult decision.
The Murdoch family never stopped to… think about an adult ‘adoptee’ making our own responsible… decision without needing anyone else’s permission, because all they care about is continuing to project an entirely false image of ‘philanthropy’ for tax purposes.
I am not personally interested in the class system the two-faced Murdoch family support.
(It may be the case that I have to go to the inconvenience of filing a lawsuit in Delaware in the United States too because the Murdoch family have created a considerable number of outstanding legal issues)
A kinder world is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 