Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors (ie: state & federal Labour & Liberal party & Vic Police) @ Supreme Court, Victoria, Australia: FAO Registrar: (Kindly confirm) I was always legally entitled as an Australian citizen (who had also legally acquired dual nationality incl British citizenship & foreign residencies) to ditch ‘adoption court order’ through civil lawsuits incl juries in UK, (where Murdoch family & Rudd have/had incl government funded ‘business interests’ but Rupert Murdoch & Rudd are American & Australian but not dual national British citizens) that Australian politicians, police & courts et al lack/ed any legal legal standing/jurisdiction to stop me peacefully doing & could not necessitate me bringing… additional legal proceedings in Victoria, Australia to do (the for example fmr Australian PM, FM Rudd now hiding away as an Ambassador in Australian embassy in United States with a still undeclared ‘conflict of interest’ is & was still in ‘contempt of court’ of my lawsuits in UK when he tried to for example also be nominated as UN Secretary General to continue to hide he obviously only collected $1.4 billion brown envelope from Murdoch family politicians in UK, he laundered through Ingeus by abusing using public office to illegally cover up my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 & CCTV of torture & attempted murder etc of me over Mothers Day 2006 etc) (20.12.2023)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
______________________
I am an Australian citizen who legally acquired dual nationality and foreign residencies, and I am not aware of any Australian politician, police or courts et al having (or having had) any legal standing/jurisdiction to stop me peacefully ditching the ‘adoption court order’ made in Victoria, Australia, through lawsuits including with a jury in the UK.
It is common-sense I would never agree and have never agreed to be or remain an ‘adoptee’ if there was the slightest… possibility I could be arrested !! (and the rest) because I peacefully object/ed to an ‘adoption court order’ including by bringing legal proceedings in a court.
The shameless Rudd (refer Roland Phillips etc below)
The Australian government (and for example the Adoption Information Service in Victoria, Australia) obviously never had any legal grounds to refuse to make full disclosure to me of my ‘adoption records’ in… my lawsuits… in the UK (the records obviously lead back to and identify the involvement of the Murdoch family who trafficked me to the intelligence services despite the fact no-one could have ‘reasonably believed’ the ‘adoption’ was legal etc etc. The Murdoch family obviously also had an undeclared ‘conflict of interest’ in not wanting adoptees to be included in class actions for example about the use of the DES cancer causing drug, although in the wider medical context politicians have clearly been negligent towards the health of ‘adoptees’.
The Murdoch family and Rudd obviously financially benefited from this ‘smoking email’ (below) illegally trying to impose unreasonable and unworkable ‘conditions’ on my having CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me (that I do not not how it came into the possession of the lawyer/law firm) that could have been sent to m by email (I had a High Court Order saying I could be served by email):
There are and were numerous politicians et al who are and were like the Murdoch family in ‘contempt of court’ of legal proceedings including my jury lawsuits in the UK. A jury would conclude there is a connection between the Murdoch family trying to stop me giving evidence in any court on 19th July 2007, 2009 and 2011.
The facts lead back to the involvement of the Murdoch family:
It is obviously also a legal absurdity to say that I could not as an Australian citizen who had legally acquired dual nationality (ie: British) to bring/have lawsuits in the UK while and where the Murdoch family and former Australian PM, FM and now Australian ambassador to United States have/had (incl. government funded) ‘business interests’ (while Rupert Murdoch and Rudd were not British citizens). I was essentially stopped from peacefully living in (for example) the UK by the actions/business interests of an Australian citizen (Rudd) and American citizen (Rupert Murdoch).
There was obviously no stay on ‘satellite litigation’ in HQ11X00563 (that I had really ‘won’ in early 2011) so the person/s named 9 & 11 could not have had any injunction protecting them that is referred to in this ‘smoking email’ below from 17th January 2012 (the people named 9 & 11 in HQ11X00563 too had essentially put “both houses and black rod” Johnson in the London Mayoralty by covering up what Livingstone also did to me while London Mayor):
The adoption industry will only remain nothing more than a political racket until such time as courts et al do properly record on their ‘registers’ any ‘adoptee’ ditching an ‘adoption court order’ made while we were minors that we do not need anyone else’s permission to do. Since when would an ‘adoptee’ need to ‘apply’ under FOI for a complete record of their ‘adoption records’ ?
The only reason the Murdoch family backed Rudd as Australian PM was because they intended to launder money from harming me, through Ingeus in the UK.
Rudd had numerous undeclared ‘conflicts of interest’.
It beggars belief that Victoria Police in Australia hired a ‘Sir’ Ken Jones (when Rudd was PM) when they must have known he was already in ‘Contempt of Court’ in… legal proceedings in the UK involving the use of undercovers too:
The London Mayoralty/Murdoch family ‘welfare queen’ Johnson saga was was a load of old legal woo (the ‘Times Law Report’ does not reflect an accurate recollection of what was said and by whom and when) because politicians et al could obviously not be ‘arbiters’ in their own case:
(There were no legal grounds to remit a case… against Brian and I back to the High Court for another round when we had already ‘won’ on/before 21st June 2010 etc):
A Ms McKenzie who was formerly a deputy Chief of Staff to Rudd had an undeclared ‘conflict of interest’ when she contacted me (I have no idea why… she contacted me while working at Vic Police, that given the facts on the ground at that time too, the Murdoch family must have told her to do):
Ms McKenzie had obviously also personally financially profited as a political appointee and then posing as a civil servant from the concealment of the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK:
There was obviously no ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563 on 16th or 17th January 2012 so number 9 and number 11 in HQ11X00563 could not have had the alleged injunction another fmr PM & Home Secretary TM, referred to in… subsequent ‘satellite litigation’ that was also a distraction from for example CO11393/2007.
(on 16th & 17th July 2007, the British governmnt admitted in court on the witness stand to illegally using ‘Special Branch’ against me, before I was kidnapped from inside Lavender Hill/Southwestern Magistrates on 19th July 2007 to stop me giving evidenc in another case involving the Murdoch family)
While I obviously do have universal jurisdiction because of for example the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK, it would be a legal absurdity to say any Australian politician or Victorian state or federal court had any legal or universal jurisdiction over me as an adoptee ditching an ‘adoption court order’ through legal proceedings overseas through for example lawsuits in the UK. I was always open and honest that I own my own home in Breizh, France (that I can no longer permanently live in because of the effects of recurrent cancer and multiple medical treatment) so politicians et al did and do reasonably know it is and was obviously a legal absurdity that I would need to return to Victoria, Australia to bring additional legal proceedings to ditch the ‘adoption court order’ that at most would only serve to cover up the blushes of the Murdoch family and their revolving entourage of politicians and journalists.
The fact I was married in New Zealand that unlike the ‘adoption court order’ I did agree to as an adult, and divorced in the UK without needing to return to New Zealand, shows the legal absurdity of any Victorian court claiming they could have/have had ‘universal jurisdiction’ over an ‘adoption court order’ made in Victoria, Australia.
I reasonably believe that the Victorian courts are only legally obliged to record I have ditched the ‘adoption court order’ that I did not need to pay money to or have the permission of anyone else, or go to any court, to peacefully legally do.
I am not aware/and have not been made aware of any legal reason the County Court in Victoria, Australia has to not record on their… register that I have ditched the ‘adoption court order’ that I was obviously legally entitled to do while living in my own home in Breizh, France, and without needing to return to Australia.
It is obviously agreed the only reason I went to the County Court on 21st December 2021 was to confirm in my own witness statement that I had ditched the ‘adoption court order’ that I have taken all reasonable steps to legally peacefully do. It was entirely natural that I wanted to return to my own home in Breizh, France, and the only thing really stopping me doing that then was the Murdoch family and Rudd.
I do not personally understand how the County Court could have possibly thought they had any legal standing/jurisdiction to do anything other than properly record the fact I have ditched the ‘adoption court order’. I do not know any reason why I would need to bring… additional legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia about ditching the adoption court order
I refer the Supreme Court to (for example) the ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court’ case in the UK in 2007 (including me) that refers to legal issues about ‘jurisdiction’ too, where the true central issue there was courts not properly making or keeping accurate and contemporaneous records of legal proceedings in court/s.
(In that ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case in the UK -where the Murdoch family comments do not reflect an accurate ‘recollection’ of the facts etc- a central legal argument being ‘sidestepped’ was the courts et al could not be arbiters in their own cases – because ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was intended by politicians/legislators “both houses and black rod” et al who include members of the judiciary/Law Lords et al to ban peacefully campaigning in Parliament Square, Central London. The British government would have obviously abolished the GLA if Brian had won the London Mayoralty so any argument about the British Supreme Court or monarchy subsequently trying to lay claim to ‘ownership’ of any part of Parliament Square, Central London was/would be a moot point because the public space would always revert to public ownership in perpetuity because the peace and harmony of the rule of law takes precedence)
The true legal reality is politicians and courts cannot legally dispute what a member of the public has said in a court/said what was said in court, if and when it is the… politicians and courts who refuse to make or keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of the legal proceedings in a court.
I am not aware of Australian politicians having ever published anything that says Australian citizens who they label ‘adoptees’ are not legally entitled to ditch an ‘adoption court order’ made in for example Victoria, Australia, through legal proceedings in another country, including through a civil jury. It would obviously look very odd if they had.
_________________________
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 