Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors (ie: state & federal Labour & Liberal party & Vic Police) @ Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia: FAO Registrar re: legal authority/legal standii/‘jurisdiction’: It is ‘agreed’ I could not & did not commit any known civil or criminal offence making my own decision to officially ditch trauma of ‘adoption court order’ (before trauma of inextricably linked recurrent cancer) so therefore no court could have any ‘jurisdiction’ to oppose my decision because sometimes politicians & press lie (ie: ‘Smartmatic’ lawsuit in U.S. is a distraction because evidence is Murdoch family & Lord Malloch- Brown worked together in UK after politicians had only recklessly created unnecessary further… uncertainty for ‘adoptees’ with… retrospective 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia, to illegally try & stop any jury lawsuits because politicians knew they were already… ‘out of time’ to provide court certified copies of ‘adoption court orders’ to adoptees, that they had & have always illegally refused to provide to ‘adoptees’ along with illegally refusing to notify ‘adoptees’ of use of banned DES cancer causing drug etc etc that was all done to hide politicians & their mates like Murdoch family always knew courts had no… ‘jurisdiction’ to stop adoptees ditching ‘adoption court orders’ made while we were minors, without our needing to have anyone else’s ‘permission’ or needing to go to court) (10.11.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The fact is politicians and courts have no legal authority/jurisdiction to stop adoptees ditching ‘adoption court orders’ made while we were minors.
In the same way politicians and their mates in the UK had “no recognised defence in law” to put before a jury, neither do politicians in Australia.
It would obviously bring the administration of justice into serious disrepute if ‘adoptees’ had to (for example) ask for ‘permission’ from anyone else to reclaim our identities that were ‘officially’… erased. In practice politicians and their mates have used the 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia, to try and hide behind judges.
It is in fact ‘agreed’ that I have not committed any civil or criminal offence in ditching the ‘adoption court order’ that means politicians and courts have a legal duty to officially record that legal reality on adoption court records.
The reality is sometimes self-serving politicians and press lie, like over the Iraq War too.
The politicians in Australia put in place a sequence of events in Australia with the political window dressing of the Victorian 1984 adoption legislation that in illegally trying to stop jury lawsuits over ‘adoption court orders’ -also- put my life at risk in -for example- the UK when I ended up with jury lawsuits there beginning on Mothers Day 2006.
The politicians and press illegally published a false report on Mothers Day 2006 to hide what is really shown is that it was agreed I had a High Court jury lawsuit/s from Mothers Day 2006:
The politicians knew what they were doing, because Blair had also previously contrived adoption legislation for the Murdoch family:
(The 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia was based on me simply because the facts of my case involved the Murdoch family trafficking me to the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services, so obviously none of them wanted to be professionally embarrassed by jury lawsuits. By the time the legislation was retrospectively invented they already also knew they had not informed adoptees about the use of the banned cancer causing drug DES)
(It made no difference to me who was involved in my adoption case, because my decision about ditching the ‘adoption court order’ would have been the same. The reality is politicians are legally obliged to accept adoptees can ditch adoption court orders made while we were minors because not everyone wants a court order subject that is really subject to the whim of… politicians and their mates. In Germany there is an obvious legal conflict between the adoption of minors, and the adoption of consenting adults, because the consent of people who become adoptees as adults is necessary, which contrasts with adult adoptees who had court orders made as minors (ie: Gerhard Schroeder, the former German Chancellor between 1998 -2005 who like Blair abused public office to legislate for his own personal interests).
I have a High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from the 16th April 2008 in the UK because politicians maliciously… lied to take me to court and falsely imprison me on an non-imprisonable alleged s5 Public Order offence, using a Magistrates Court.
(The ‘landmark’ jurisdiction argument in the alleged contempt of court case in the UK about me, was obviously contrived because the politicians simply don’t have a reasonable excuse to refuse to have Magistrates Court make and keep etc audio recordings that would have to be signed by the person the case is against too, because that is what police already have to do in police interviews. In that malicious case the Magistrates court had refused to hand over a copy of six summons they had illegally issued on Friday 23rd March 2007 for a hearing on Monday 26th March 2007, which while also illegally trying to deny me the opportunity to have legal representation, was obviously the anniversary of Mothers Day 2006. The clearly unlawful summons were hastily placed ‘sine die’ by the Magistrates Court, to try and avoid any legal scrutiny of them)
The Murdoch family version of proceedings:
I did not commit and civil or criminal offence in making my own decision to ditch the ‘adoption court order’ before I was officially diagnosed with cancer, so the courts obviously have no legal authority/jurisdiction to challenge my decision.
In fact, the purpose of the 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia that was made while I was on a kibbutz Yad Mordechai in Israel near Gaza when a man calld Barnett who posed as my godfather was Director General of ASIO, ’sidestepped’ the reality politicians et al knew they were already ‘out of time’ to provide adoptees including in a ‘timely manner’ with court certified copies of ‘adoption court orders’ for adoptees to bring our own legal challenges.
The Murdoch family who use ‘adoption’ to pose as ‘saviours’ have arguably built their media empire from… exploiting ‘adoptees’.
The politicians were legally obliged to at the very least provide a court certified copy of the ‘adoption court order’ to me as an adoptee, at the latest, when I became officially recognized as an adult in every other respect.
There would obviously be no legal system if courts never provided a court certified copy of court orders to the person… a court order is about.
(In the same way politicians acting on behalf of the Murdoch family in the UK knew they had no legal grounds to take me to court in the UK, the politicians and Murdoch family know that adoptees do not need to to go to court and have someone else’s ‘permission’ to ditch an ‘adoption court order’ made while we were minors in for example Victoria, Australia. It is a straightforward matter for politicians and courts to record the decision to ditch the ‘adoption court order’ on the courts adoption court records/adoption register which the adoptee must have a court certified copy of to provide to other government agencies/departments)
Of course politicians knew they also have no jurisdiction to oppose adoptees ditching ‘adoption court orders’ that we haven’t even been provided a copy of !!!! including in a timely manner.
The fact is there are numerous reasons courts lack the necessary legal authority/locus standii/jurisdiction to oppose my own decision to officially ditch adoption and the ‘adoption court order’.
The Iraq War reminded us that sometimes politicians and their mates will lie for their own self- serving reasons:
In British politics, it is certainly very difficult to accurately determine where the intertwined nature of politicians and the press begin and end, such is the revolving doors between both based mostly on the ‘aristocracy’ and the linked concept of male ‘primogeniture’.
I was unlawfully arrested for peacefully displaying a pink-sequinned banner that said “Peace, Love & Justice For All” !!!! so I won’t be taking lectures from politicians who claim they support the peace and harmony of the rule of law and democracy, when I know they don’t really.
Most civilians know the truth is Blair(‘ism’) cared nothing about Iraqi, British or… Australian civilian lives:
“These are all people” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Iraq “who are flesh and blood like you and me”:
The British government were forced to admit the next day, that it was unlawful to ban me (above) because I had a banner. The Murdoch family had me unlawfully arrested on 19th July 2007 inside a Lavender Hill/Southwestern Magistrates Court during live proceedings (which is a contempt of court) to stop me giving evidence in another case involving them (from just two days after the case above) that had resulted in a Westminster Magistrates Court defying/being in contempt of a Southwark Crown Court Order from 8th March 2007 -and- the right to appeal so another illegal Westminster Magistrates Court Order from January 2007 had to be withdrawn.
For the avoidance of doubt the Smartmatic lawsuit in the United States is a distraction because the evidence is that in the UK, the Murdoch family and Lord Malloch-Brown who also worked on behalf of Vitol Oil, have always worked together.
Most people would a assume ‘Lord’ Malloch-Brown (who obviously doesn’t support democracy anywhere -the clue is in the title ‘Lord’)) was hired by a company called ‘Smartmatic’ because he could get them government contracts:
It’s worthwhile to also remember when and how Murdoch acquired Fox.
Whatever a company called ‘Smartmatic’ and Murdoch et al may claim their story to be, it simply does not compare to the already existing global… exploitation of adoptees, where so many have had our identities actually… erased.
I am Donna, not a Donald:
The Murdoch family had already hidden my real Mediterranean identity is Donna, along with the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK… before they spun whatever their Donald story is, where Trump just obediently did the Murdoch family bidding about ‘adoption’ anyway.
The politicians and their mates like the Murdoch family obviously never cared about the physical or emotional health of adoptees because they illegally also withheld not just CCTV, but medical information (like the use of DES, the banned cancer causing drug) from adoptees too:
No-one would want or agree to have an ‘adoption court order’ that could cynically be used by politicians and their mates like the Murdoch family, to withhold information about the use of a banned cancer causing drug like DES. The politicians could not legally use an ‘adoption court order’ to prevent adoptees being included in lawsuits about -for example- the use of DES, so all adoptees are essentially entitled to free universal healthcare and insurance.
In my own case, politicians and the Murdoch family have in practice illegally sought to exclude me from -any- jury lawsuit, to illegally try and prevent my ditching the ‘adoption court order’. It is obviously not the case, that the uncertainty of the likes of the 1984 adoption legislation is the only way an ‘adoptee’ can ditch an adoption court order. The 1984 adoption legislation is problematic precisely because it unnecessarily compounds the.. uncertainty in the life of an ‘adoptee’.
The politicians knew they were in contempt of court on January 16th 2012 because they/their campaign did not have any injunction on 16th January 2012 (as dishonestly claimed by another former British PM & Home Secretary May) and could not have had one, because there wasn’t even any pretense of any ‘stay’ permanent or otherwise in HQ11X00563 on 16th January 2012 that I had really ‘won’ in January 2011, before the Murdoch family withdrew from the BskyB deal in July 2011:
(In fact I had also really ‘won’ HQ12X03564 too over 16th January 2012 because politicians lied when they claimed they/their campaign had an injunction on 16th January 2012 because thy couldn’t have, because there was no ‘stay’ on the pre-existing HQ11X00563 from January 2011, on 16th January 2012)
There were numerous political and business connections between Johnson (the journalist, Mayor of London and boss of the top cops) at City Hall and Westminster Council, like a Simon Milton and Mr Barrow, the barrow boy who had admitted to an American news media outfit I hadn’t done anything wrong (so politicians et al couldn’t put him on a witness stand)
The actual reason Johnson fronted Brexit was because he was completely legally compromised by the torture and attempted murder of me, while the Murdoch family just used their role in Brexit as revenge over the BskyB deal.
The Murdoch family had repeatedly illegally called for me to be ‘removed’ (copying the political policy of Israel towards Yasser Arafat) to in my own case illegally try and stop pre-existing lawsuits (ie CO/11393/2007) or other jury lawsuits:
A Southwark Crown Court was still resisting handing over an audio recording (in Co/11393/2007) in September… 2010. I had properly complained politicians (and thir mates including in the press) were always illegally trying to ‘overtake’ our lawsuits.
The ‘serious procedural irregularities’ I experienced were all clearly “politically motivated”:
(I did one better and went to live in my own home in a Mediterranean country in continental Europe. I also wanted to learn more about my own Mediterranean identity that was illegally erased by the ‘adoption court order’, that I couldn’t do with all the political persecution in the UK)
They obviously knew I was a Bugat (who came before a Bulat):
** The British politicians had “no recognized defence to put before (even a trial with a judge by that stage when I had really ‘won’ in early January 2011… before Johnson tried to maliciously try me… again in his inextricably linked omnishambles ) which is why the politicians et al ‘contempt of court’ happened on 16th January 2012 ** The politicians et al did not have a ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563, on 16th January 2012, that they knew I had ‘won’ with a counterclaim.
The now ‘Ambassadors’ Rudd & Smith trying to protect the $1.4 billion dollar brown envelope,
(I recall that politicians et al did say they worked with undercover Australian police in Westminster too)
The Murdoch family (and another of their henchman Lord Marlesford) knew that since Mothers Day 2006, the politicians had me unlawfully arrested so they could publish in the Murdoch press etc whatever they liked, because I could not get an injunction to stop them doing that, while I was illegally detained (I was unlawfully arrested at 3am on 17th January 2012, many hours after 7.30pm on the 16th January 2012, that the Sun refer to, so the politicians could publish their lies in the press which was pretty much a repeat of 23rd May 2006):
However, the Murdoch family knew I was recorded commenting about their Sun journalist on 16th January 2012.
I helped (despite very considerable odds) to repeal Blair et al’s ban on peaceful freedom of expression in the public space of Parliament Square, Central London in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that was made against Brian, which politicians and their mates like the Murdoch family tried to cover up with legislation then based on me in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
It is highly unusual for anyone to have legislation based on them in two countries, which is what has unfortunately happened to me with the 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia and parts of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
There is just more political window dressing (below) in Canberra in Australia, because in the UK, the ‘political policy’ was to ban the ‘structure’ called my body with the torture and attempted murder of me that is a fact (not an ‘allegation’) that saw Rudd and his ‘welfare queen’
collected a $1.4 billion brown envelope they laundered through Ingeus (which they did in contempt of court of HQ11X00563 in the UK too) to cover up.
The politicians abuse public office to legislate for their personal and private interests (and it’s obviously untrue that politicians and their mates respect the privacy of adoptees):
I am withdrawing any offer to separately forego compensation through jury lawsuits.
I am able to provide to the Supreme Court in Victoria, written evidence that some government agencies in Victoria, Australia, do (in what they stamp ‘official’ correspondence) acknowledge my actual identity is Donna Bugat. It really is not a legal problem for any court to amend it’s court records, to properly reflect, I have ditched the ‘adoption court order’ in Case 352 from 28th May 1963 in the County Court in Melbourne.
I am entitled to be able to focus my attention on pleasant activities, and improving my quality of life, instead of being endlessly burdened by an ‘adoption court order’ unfairly interfering in my daily life.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 