Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors (ie: politicians & Vic Police) @ Supreme Court, Victoria, Australia: FAO Supreme (Federal & High Court) Registrar: It is a… legal certainty I do not need to seek or have ‘permission’ from any politicians, police, prosecutors, press, judges & courts in Australia or elsewhere to ditch adoption court order & then if I chose, dual nationality, to freely choose to stand in federal politics in Australia; it is Australian politicians… themselves who illegally legislated… in Australia with 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, to avoid… legal obligation to ensure equal application of ss 44 of Australian Constitution about dual nationals standing in federal politics in Australia (that politicians illegally failed to disclose in a) my High Court jury lawsuits in UK & b) their own legal proceedings over s 44 of Australian Constitution in Australia while falsely claiming they ‘own’ & can stash my personal & private adoption information in ‘Public Records Office’ without my express permission) (10.10.2024)
I make this witness statement/of truth/ statutory declaration.
My own identity of Donna Bugat (formerly known by my adoptee name of Babs) is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The politicians in Australia have always illegally relied on the 1984 Adoption Act, they legislated to… intentionally treat me so disrespectfully, because there is nothing about that… Australian legislation that is about… equally applying s 44 of the Australian Constitution to an Australian dual national adoptee.
There is a long-standing undeclared conflict of interest by… Australian politicians about Australian dual national adoptees standing in federal politics in Australia.
The unlawful ‘trial by media’ of me in the UK that began on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 while the Murdoch family lawyer Blair was grandstanding in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
(NB: It is important to note that no-one ever dared repeat in any witness statement or on any witness stand in any court, the lies published above, first circulated by New Scotland Yard, about the unlawful arrest of Brian and I, that began the ‘trial by media’ of me in the UK)
The fmr Australian Foreign Minister Downer who along with being an overpaid mouthpiece at ‘the Australian’ newspaper for the Murdoch family, who also became Australian Ambassador to the UK to cover up what he did, while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France, illegally tried to say in… 2006, when I was in Parliament Square, Central London (in circumstances that he would not like me repeating before a High Court jury) that I was no longer an Australian citizen, to try and cover up the s 44 deceit (because politicians did not ensure I had… access to legal representation, because of their own undeclared conflict of interest.
The start of the ‘trial by media’ of me in the UK:
**** The Australian politicians have always pointed elsewhere when grandstanding about politicians cases about dual nationality, because it is politicians themselves who illegally legislated… in Australia, to ignore the equal application of s44 of the Australian Constitution about dual nationals ****
The politicians have always known -I- have been legally entitled to the legal certainty of as an adult being able to freely to choose to stand in federal politics in Australia, which has illegally been denied to me, because of the politically motivated, deceitful, and underhand sleight of hand of the 1984 adoption legislation in the state of Victoria, Australia that has illegally circumvented the legal obligation for equal application of s44 of the Australian Constitution.
The Australian politicians have always illegally failed to disclose it is they… themselves who illegally enacted the legally unnecessary ‘permission’ regime (the politically motivated obstacle course to ditch an adoption court order) contained in the 1984 adoption legislation in the state of Victoria, Australia (that was based on me to illegally stop me having the legal certainty of being able to freely choose to stand in federal politics in Australia, because politicians et al wanted to avoid any political embarrassment to the Murdoch family and Barnett who posed as my godfather who was Director General of ASIO at the time)
There was a “both houses & black rod” in not just the British, but among Australian politicians too:
(the British politicians repeatedly illegally failed to disclose the incriminating ‘both houses’ document dated 19th May 2006, below, the Metropolitan Police only belatedly disclosed (& Livingstone, Johnson and Starmer et al still covered up) in CO/11393/2007 (where I was an interested party because I had a High Court jury lawsuit over my unlawful arrest/s:)
When I had asked a Ms Winfield who was a brief for the MET about the document of a meeting she attended, which was only belatedly disclosed (it was seriously illegal it was withheld from other earlier and then later proceedings) she said it was the top cop et al’s “get out of jail free card” (so that politicians would ensure top cops didn’t find themselves on a witness stand before a High Court jury)
The top cop et al had (illegally) not disclosed “both houses and black rod” in the hearing below (which lacks context by the BBC) which resulted in CO/11393/2007:
The BBC et al knew they were still like in 2006, and 2007 (when my cases had… already had to be moved out of Westminster Magistrates) and in 2010, still misleading the public in 2011 because they obviously knew about CO/11393/2007, including they were actually in the High court in 2011 when I complained and the High Court judge was forced to agree in the illegally ‘remitted’ case, Johnson was illegally trying to ‘overtake’ our lawsuits (and prevent our counter lawsuits) :
The British politicians relied on Australian politicians and vice-versa, with a combination of undeclared conflicts of interest that included the Murdoch family who trafficked me as a small child, to the intelligence services.
The reason Australian politicians did not ensure I had… access to legal representation in the UK, that (also delayed the repeal of unlawful ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK, I nevertheless managed to help repeal) then resulted in my having High Court jury lawsuits in the UK, was because Australian politicians had the undeclared conflict of interest involving their own deceitful adoption legislation from 1984 in Victoria, Australia that was based on me.
The Australian politicians… knew when there were then s 44 dual national proceedings in Australia involving… themselves that they still illegally failed to disclose they had…. themselves illegally legislated in Australia !!!! to stop me as a dual national adoptee from freely choosing to stand in federal politics in Australia.
The politicians and political parties knew politicians had themselves illegally legislated in… Australia to avoid legal obligations to treat Australian citizens equally with regard to s 44 of the Australian Constitution:
The commentary by Australian Constitutional lawyer is misleading, because the Australian politicians (who obviously know and are legally responsible for what they legislate) had… already illegally legislated in Australia via the (back-door of ) 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria.
In practise the politicians et al have illegally been refusing to hand over a court certified copy of my adoption court order (the Adoption mis- Information Service only hand over photocopies, and then only if you are in Australia)
Since I was forced to return to Australia to try and work through the legal quagmire which is entirely the making of politicians, politicians et al have more recently (without consulting with or even the knowledge of all adoptees) illegally been stashing adoption information, with yet more…. strangers, this time in the Public Records office in Victoria.
(This is similar to Johnson stealing campaign property including legally privileged papers in the UK, during live court proceedings, and then stashing them in the Museum of London, in the City of London who then illegally refused to return legally privileged papers etc !!!! to me. Clearly Johnson and the Museum of London in the City of London did not ‘own’ my…. ummm… legally privileged information, but they have for politically motivated reasons wilfully obstructed the proper administration of justice)
The adoption information obviously includes adoptees personal information the courts never had any legal authority to disclose or pass on to politicians, civil servants, or the Public Records Office and particularly without the express permission of an adoptee.
The widespread trading of adoptees personal and private information, by politicians and courts without the express permission of adoptees, and specifically while courts have at the very same time always illegally refused to hand over to all adoptees a court certified copy of our adoption court orders (to illegally try and stop jury lawsuits like mine in the UK) is unlawful:
The very serious legal problems with the politicians (illegally) stashing personal and private information about adoptees in the PROV without bothering to have the… express permission of any affected adoptee in what are after all very serious…. legal cases (that are still ongoing in many instances) where the adoptee is not a… criminal by virtue of being an adoptee (but is by the disrespectful sharing of personal information between so many strangers in government being treated as such) is that it is a far from legal attempt by politicians (and civil servants) to further (illegally) try to claim political… ownership of adoptees personal information that politicians have long been illegally hawking among various government agencies, along with the government trying to put their all too often deceitful version of adoptions on yet another ‘public record’. The Public Record Office are not an independent bystander or arbiter.
The Public Records Office are just more… strangers illegally claiming ‘ownership’ of and doing whatever they and politicians and the likes of the Murdoch family want, with the private and personal information of adoptees.
The politicians are also wilfully obstructing the proper administration of justice by not ensuring all adoptees have a court certified copy/extract of our adoption court orders.
The true legal reality is Australian adoptees including Australian dual national adoptees, are legally entitled to the… legal certainty of being able to stand in federal politics in Australia, which means adoptees do not need the permission of politicians, police, prosecutors, press or courts to ditch an adoption court order, that includes where an adoptee chooses, to ditch a dual nationality to stand in federal politics in Australia.
What Australian politicians have not and have never had had any legal authority to do is use the 1984 Victorian adoption legislation to create uncertainty for an Australian dual national adoptee, by claiming we need the permission of the originating court to ditch an adoption court order, to only then be ‘allowed’ to ditch a dual nationality to stand in federal politics.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
Donna Bugat 