Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors (ie: state & federal Labour & Liberal party & Vic Police) @ Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia: FAO Registrar: The legal reality is the… same revolving doors of Murdoch family led British & Australian politicians, press & civil servants like Johnson, Cameron, Starmer, May, Glass, Rudd, & Albanese et al know & knew they have & had no ‘recognized defence in law’ to in any circumstances, stop me making my own… decision (ie: ’reasonable self defence/s 3(1) of Criminal Law Act 1967 UK) to ditch ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor, without my needing to go to any court & regardless of my living overseas, so they knew they are & were repeatedly in ‘contempt of court’ over (for example) my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 etc and High Court Order from 3rd March 2009 in CO/11393/2007 etc & HQ11X00563 etc with (for example) $1.4 billion dollar rip-off laundered through Ingeus in 2011 while I was in Parliament Square, Central London in the UK when they were illegally trying to stop jury lawsuits from Mothers Day 2006 etc so I am exempt from court proceedings about ‘adoption’ in Victoria, Australia & would use any compensation to help fund office in Jerusalem for former ‘adoptees’ of any race, religion, politics or none (23.11.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
It is obviously ‘reasonable self defence’ (ie: s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 in the UK) for me to ditch an ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor, without my needing to go to court to do that, because politicians et al obviously have ‘no recognized defence in law’ to stop me making that decision they are only legally obliged to properly record.
The British politicians illegally published this lie (below) on Mothers Day 2006 (which they could only do because I could not get an injunction to stop them publishing the lies while I was illegally detained) to try and hide what was already actually… agreed, was I had a High Court jury lawsuit:
The false and malicious suggestion that was made publicly, was that I had done something ‘wrong’ and not just any old ‘wrong, but something that was so seriously ‘wrong’ it was ‘criminal’. In fact, it was just so a Murdoch family mouthpiece, the traveling salesman Blair could grandstand in Australia.
The big tough guy Blair was while grandstanding in front of the Australian Parliament really picking on a defenceless Australian citizen and woman in the UK.
I don’t personally take lectures from politicians and press who think a woman peacefully standing in an open public space with a pink-sequinned banner that says “Peace, Love & Justice For All” (it was on 9th July 2006 in the cover up over Mothers Day 2006 in Blair’s Britain) should be violently “arrested” (I was never prosecuted):
The British and Australian politicians were repeatedly falling over each other to stop me speaking on a witness stand… in a court, and particularly before a civil jury. The politicians, press and civil servants were repeatedly in ‘contempt of court’ with regard to what they… published while there were legal proceedings involving/against them. This happened because the legal reality is politicians et al have never had any ‘recognized defence in law’ to stop me making my own… decision (ie: ’reasonable self defence/s 3(1) of Criminal Law Act 1967 UK, to ditch an ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor. The fact politicians have ‘no recognized defence in law’ to stop me making my own decision to ditch the ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor is the same whether or not it is a civil jury trial or not, because the true starting point is politicians et al have ‘no recognized defence in law’ in any circumstances.
The politicians knew they are and were repeatedly in ‘contempt of court’ in (for example) CO/11393/2007 & HQ11X00563 where I found myself the common denominator because I had an originating jury lawsuit from Mothers Day 2006. The former British PM Cameron publicly articulated what Blair et al had been saying behind that back of Brian and I, to the Murdoch family et al. They knew it would also come out in CO/11393/2007 that not only did Blair (for example) speak to Serota from the Tate Britain about the ‘State Britain’ rip-off, (which is really about the government looking at their CCTV to see how Brian and I met) but the Labour government paid Tate Britain & the con-artist Wallinger for the rip-off while the Labour chair of Tate Britain, a Lord Myner who also says he was an ‘adoptee’ was chair of the Guardian newspaper too.
I pointed out on the court record in the High Court in April 2011, that the government had not even ‘complied’ with number 1 of a High Court Order from 3rd March 2009 in CO/11393/2007 to provide even a court transcript from Southwark Crown Court (over what was said and by whom when I was on the witness stand) which by then (April 2011) included HQ11X00563 etc.
The politicians et al were primarily bothered about… anyone being cross-examined before a High Court civil jury, that I was legally entitled to:
The now Lord Cameron was obviously part of ‘both houses and black rod’ (below) when he was in ‘contempt of court’ of for example my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 & the High Court Court order from 3rd March 2009 in CO/11393/2007 when he publicly confirmed his ‘agreement’ on 19th July 2009 with the Murdoch family who have maliciously targeted me throughout. This is because the Murdoch family arguably built their global empire from originally exploiting ’adoptees’ with the retrospective 1984 adoption legislation made while Barnett who posed as my godfather was Director General of ASIO, and I was on the Yad Mordechai kibbutz in Israel near Gaza, before Murdoch ‘acquired’ American citizenship in 1985.
There was no actual explanation of why the document dated 19th May 2006 about “both houses and black rod” was only very belatedly disclosed in CO/11393/2007 and not earlier in other legal ‘proceedings’ including (for example) Hugo Keith KC.
(A Supt. Terry was transferred out of Charing Cross in January 2008 -after I ‘won’ three cases in a row at Southwark Crown Court in December 2007- and it was claimed a Chief Inspector Layzell who is seen speaking to me on 23rd May 2006 had decamped to the Bahamas, while Ingeldew shuffled across to Westminster Council so was involved in HQ11X00563 etc too)
The now Lord Cameron et al were in serious ‘contempt of court’ and then some, for refusing to hand over the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me following 19th July 2009… before he was continuing to then call for our ‘clearance’:
The British politicians made retrospective legislation against Brian in 2005 (that I helped force off the statute books in the UK) after Australian politicians had made retrospective adoption legislation against me in 1984, in Victoria, Australia (before British politicians also made retrospective legislation against me in 2011 in the UK)
And then there was no ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563 on 16th January 2012 (that led to my High Court jury lawsuit in HQ12X03564 etc) when another now ‘former’ PM May was wittering on in a ‘smoking email’ on 17th January 2012 about ‘satellite litigation’
There couldn’t have been an injunction in ‘satellite litigation’ the now former PM May was wittering on about in the ‘smoking email’ on 17th January 2012 because the politicians and press knew there was no ‘stay’ on HQ11X00563, so what they published in the press was in ‘contempt of court’ in existing proceedings.
The politicians and press obviously had… access to ‘court filings’ so they knew there was no ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563 on 16th January 2012 and no injunction in ‘satellite litigation’ May dishonestly refers to on 17th January 2012… before they published their lies in the press.
The former PM TM, illegally used this ‘smoking email’ (below) to try and hide the ‘contempt of court’ really being committed by politicians and press over what they published in the press:
The ‘Home Secretary’ knew there was no ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563 on 16th January 2012, and no injunction in the ‘satellite litigation’ she refers to (that was invented to distract from the fact I had ‘won’ HQ11X00563 & CO/11393/2007 in early 2011)
I would obviously never agree to an ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor, that politicians have used to (for example) hide the identity of any male who violently attacked me (and I would obviously never campaign with anyone who also tried to cover up the identity of males who violently attacked me):
There is only an undeniable ‘pattern’ of politicians taking me to court simply to try and unnecessarily cause me distress.
The big tough guy Johnson covered up the identity of the male assailant (above) too, for his own political advantage:
It’s commonsense that Wheeler (like Rein) knew Johnson (like Rudd) was… repeatedly in Contempt of Court in CO/11393/2007 & HQ11X00563 etc.
I don’t personally remember the likes of Johnson, Rudd, Wheeler or Rein ever peacefully defending freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
I do ‘reasonably believe’ the legal reality is courts have no jurisdiction to oppose my own decision, or to refuse to record my own decision to ditch the ‘adoption court order’ made while I was a minor (which is separate to/not contingent on any compensation)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 