Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: I personally advocate for International Civil Court with choice of juries to transform global legislative & legal landscape because likes of Premier Andrews et al in Victoria, Australia not insured by VMIA to falsify government records about me incl when I was diagnosed with cancer, to try and avoid compensation for adoption racket along with British sleazebag & charlatan ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson who is not insured for illegally refusing to hand over CCTV of premeditated political torture & attempted murder of me etc, so he can collect ’speaking fees’ from Murdoch & insurance industry et al in United States etc (16.12.2022)
… it’s about having a genuine… choice… and being able to speak for yourself...
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The politicians draconian legislative overreach with what they label adoption is clearly not insured, with my own case proving politicians only continue with the barbaric practice to illegally try and avoid compensation.
It is undeniable that someone labelled adopted has the inviolable choice to renounce being labelled adopted and draconian adoption legislation and receive compensation including free unlimited universal healthcare of our choosing.
My ‘lived experience’ proves someone labelled adopted will just be trafficked from ‘jurisdiction’ to ‘jurisdiction’ to ‘jurisdiction’ to ‘jurisdiction’ by politicians.
The Victorian Health Commissioner & Victorian Law Reform Commission could not possibly reasonably believe that Premier Andrews was insured to falsify government documents, including behind my back !! which could only no longer be denied when I was diagnosed with cancer, so other government agencies became involved and the lies in the falsified government records then became unsustainable. There was never any apology or compensation for such a foul abuse and breach of the trust placed in politicians (that in my own case is hardly voluntary because I am not even voluntarily in Australia) It really is a nightmare to be forced to return to Victoria in Australia when politicians could and should have peacefully resolved my renouncing adoption etc, while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France, before I was diagnosed with cancer in Victoria, Australia. It is so unreasonable to expect someone labelled adopted in Victoria, Australia to have to leave my own home in Breizh, France and become homeless in Australia, to try and extricate myself from adoption.
It is reckless and clearly endangers my own health every single day the ostriches in public officialdom find it easier and more comfortable to stick their collective heads in the sand, and carry on, instead of being responsible and helping to right the historical wrongs.
I personally advocate for an International Civil Court with the choice of juries that would transform the global legislative and legal landscape. It’s commonsense there is no way of guaranteeing there won’t be unscrupulous politicians, so legal systems really do need to reflect that reality.
I… remember that not a single politician, police officer, London human rights lawyer, prosecutor, judge or member of the monarchy congratulated us for forcing ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books in the UK.
There is a very serious legal problem when politicians illegally try and stop compensation over one legislative over-reach like the political ban on civilians peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 we forced off the statute books while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, because that will unravel and lead to compensation over an arguably even larger legislative over-reach with draconian adoption legislation.
(There were members of the Police Federation complaining they could be held … personally liable over ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 which could not possibly have had insurance cover)
The politicians et al don’t like that a small group of people successfully challenged their legislative over-reach (and the Blair years introduced a massive increase in legislative overreach) but politicians who claim they support democracy (which of course immediately discounts the cesspit of the British House of Lords) should consult more responsibly with the public instead of being so disrespectful.
The politicians were falling over each other trying to illegally stop our… speaking for ourselves. Everything the politicians. state broadcasters and robber media barons said and did was about using unlawful force to try and impose their narrative, because they didnt want us or other civilians to speak for ourselves.
The draconian adoption legislation is all about illegally trying to stop someone speaking for ourselves by politicians labelling us adopted, as though we then become their property to do what the wish with us. The draconian adoption legislation cannot be construed as creating any kind of legally enforce-able contract. There has simply never been a case where what politicians label adoption has been the best or only option. The publicly reported judicial cases in for example the UK, simply do not make out a legal case with any legal grounds for the outcome of adoption, yet the judges make it sound that adoption was the only option. The political language of the phoney ‘forever family’ pre-supposes someone labelled adopted is a commodity to be bought and sold who can never celebrate becoming an adult and making our own decisions to to like everyone else does, build our own lives. Everything about the label adoption is about fulfilling… other people’s needs/neediness, including that of politicians trying to buy votes by using vulnerable children. It’s a legal impossibility for politicians to legally legislate to force someone to call an adult stranger a ‘parent’ for goodness sakes, and its equally ridiculous for an adult stranger to claim they ‘earned the right’ to be called a ‘parent’ which too many do.
It’s simply not possible to identify any real difference between Tory & Labour politicians generally in the UK and Australia:
The political discourse over what politicians label adoption is so disrespectful because it won’t acknowledge people labelled adopted as vulnerable children become adults who are legally entitled to make our own genuine… choices, that draconian adoption legislation attempts to not only deny, but… punish.
The Palaces of Westminster hid a lot of violence:
The reality is politicians made Westminster Village an incredibly vicious and violent place.
The sleazebag and charlatan ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson’s political ‘career’ literally consists of violently hiding the CCTV of the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me, (he could clearly easily have sent by email) while maliciously using draconian adoption legislation against me.
This does not reflect an accurate and contemporaneous record of what -I- said on the witness stand in a High Court on 21st June 2010 when everyone was falling over each other to stop me speaking for myself:
What Johnson did to me would not have happened if there was no draconian adoption legislation. He was literally paid to be a hitman for the robber media barons etc, while posing as a ‘journalist’ and Mayor of London:
There was just endless violence:
The Premier Andrews in Victoria, Australia would not have falsified government records about me if there was no draconian adoption legislation. He falsely claimed I own property in Australia to illegally try and hide him illegally stopping me living in my own home in Breizh, France because of compensation over draconian adoption legislation while intentionally trying to make me homeless in Australia, including when I was diagnosed with cancer.
The grizzly old Murdoch (who hasn’t stopped profiting from literally gambling on Brexit that could mean anything on any given day) is like a slave trader trying to hide family involvement in the adoption racket because of course the Murdoch matriarch was not practicing any kind of philanthropy when she was directly involved in what politicians label my adoption in Carlton, Victoria, Australia. The Murdoch groupies from the cult of celebrity still trying to sell the multi-billion dollar adoption racket for some free publicity for themselves are just macabre. The Victorian Liberal MP Dr Matt Bach should grow a conscience and be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
(The Murdoch press in Australia, along with the Catholic and others churches et al certainly preyed on teenagers when I was growing up> It’s quite incredible that the cult of celebrity in the UK parade around pretending to be affronted by the politicians version of the so- called hacking scandal in the UK, yet the state apparatus openly illegally collect far more information from the public. The supposed privacy for people labelled adopted is completely untrue including when there were different (phoney) birth certificates in Australia. The Victorian/Australian government lied that people who were adopted would get free versions of the ordinary birth certificates to replace the old ‘sixth schedule’ birth certificates that identified people as adopted (in my case, my sixth schedule certificate was actually destroyed by the British government years earlier) because I had to pay for the new ones sent to me dated 29th April 2015 while I was living in my own home in Breizh, France)
It’s worth remembering the example of ‘chicken feed’ Johnson and his sidekick the former PM, TM (who was SSHD) overtly nobbling a High Court Judge in the UK by falsely claiming (including publicly in the press) an injunction (protecting their undercovers illegally posing as protesters in staged separate proceedings) existed that when I went out of curiosity and checked with the administrative office in the High Court (before lawyers from WCC legally sent me the ‘smoking’ email below) found simply did not exist !! on 16th or 17th January 2012 etc (when the government already for example owed me over HQ11X00563 etc from Mothers Day 2006 etc)
And look who was coming to town then (the ABC were in tow and sent in to skulk around) while Labours Rudd was obviously not insured to collect the $1.4 billion dollar Tory brown envelope he laundered through his partner’s company of which he is a financial beneficiary:
That meeting in 2012 has produced yet another politician hiding away in the London embassy posing as an Ambassador because it would be rare to find a politician who went into politics to genuinely serve the public.
I was literally being stalked which is creepy:
The staged proceedings above relating to the smoking email earlier from the now former PM, TM when she was SSHD on 17th January 2012 (which is only really talking about when the Home Office was illegally running an undercover operation with Johnson’s MET Police against me/us until 4th May 2012) then incredibly sought to illegally ‘overtake’ my civil jury lawsuit from 16th January 2012. The government’s abuse of process above in January 201…3, involved a supposed appeal of a ‘Judicial Review’ that I was not involved in, because I (had already won HQ11X00563 in reality in January 2011 and) already had a civil jury lawsuit filed from January 16th 2012, over the legislation they then refer to, where the government had not in my different case, been able to produce a single shred of disclosure, let alone defence argument, while the government’s extraneous phoney ‘Judicial Review’ (in the knowledge I already had a pending civil jury lawsuit filed) nevertheless illegally names me (without attributing my being named to any evidence given by any named person because of course there is nothing about their phoney Judicial Review that is factually correct) to clearly try and… illegally overtake my civil jury lawsuit. I was literally being stalked which is very creepy, with the government in essence trying to make it outwardly appear that someone else, who was not actually in Parliament Square in January 2013, was me, when I was physically in Parliament Square, Central London in January 2013.
It is clear I was being discriminated against.
It should be remembered that there was no-where too low ‘chicken-feed’ Johnson was not willing to go, because he was the monster who did literally maliciously prosecute my best friend Brian, when Brian was in a medically induced coma in the ICU unit of a hospital in Bremen, Germany.
The ogre Rudd represented his wallet, not Australian citizens. One of his former ‘media advisers’ who now lurks as a political appointee with Victoria police had the front to write to me on 7th September 2022 with a load of old cobblers (after I was diagnosed with cancer) on the anniversary of the Australian general election in 2013, with an undeclared conflict of interest, while claiming to be writing on behalf of the Victorian AG she obviously… predates.
It is so clear that the only reason the legislative overreach of draconian adoption legislation continues is because politicians are trying to avoid compensation for people labelled adopted.
Mr Jonathan Baume might like to reconsider his positions, including at the CCRC.
This advisory letter from the business appointments committee contains information ‘chicken feed’ Johnson & the committee would know is untrue, along with Walker et al publishing information about Johnson they would reasonably know is untrue.
It should be reasonable for the public to expect that politicians who are still being paid by the public (which ‘chicken feed’ Johnson is) should have to at the very least publish a transcript of their public speaking for profiteering.
Decision
Advice Letter: Boris Johnson, Speaker, Harry Walker Agency LLC
Updated 7 December 2022
Contents
1. 1. BUSINESS APPOINTMENT APPLICATION: The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, former Prime Minister. Paid appointment with the Harry Walker Agency LLC.
2. 2. The Committee’s consideration of the risks presented
3. 3. The Committee’s advice
4. 4. Annex – Material information
- BUSINESS APPOINTMENT APPLICATION: The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, former Prime Minister. Paid appointment with the Harry Walker Agency LLC.
You sought advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (the Committee) under the government’s Business Appointments Rules for former ministers (the Rules) on taking up an appointment as a speaker with the Harry Walker Agency LLC (HWA). The material information taken into consideration by the Committee is set out in the annex below.
The purpose of the Rules is to protect the integrity of the government. Under the Rules, the Committee’s remit is to consider the risks associated with the actions and decisions made during your time in office, alongside the information and influence a former minister may offer HWA.
The Ministerial Code sets out that ministers must abide by the Committee’s advice. It is an applicant’s personal responsibility to manage the propriety of any appointment. Former ministers of the Crown, and Members of Parliament, are expected to uphold the highest standards of propriety and act in accordance with the 7 Principles of Public Life.
It should also be noted that in addition to the conditions imposed on this appointment under the government’s Business Appointment Rules, there are separate rules in place with regard to your role as a member of the House of Commons.- The Committee’s consideration of the risks presented
The Committee[footnote 1] does not consider joining a speaking agency raises any particular concerns under the government’s Business Appointment Rules, provided it is subject to standard conditions which prevent improper use of information and influence. These cases will normally be subject to the standard conditions below after checking with your former department. It is an individual’s responsibility to manage the propriety of the specific pieces of work undertaken. In particular, as the former Prime Minister, you must be careful not to offer any unfair insight as a result of your access to information and potential influence in government – which the conditions below seek to mitigate.
It is also relevant that you had no official dealings with the agency in office, and therefore the risk this role could reasonably be seen as a reward for decisions made, or actions taken, in office is low.- The Committee’s advice
The government’s Rules state that as a former member of the Cabinet, you are subject to a three month waiting period as standard.
The Committee advises, under the government’s Business Appointment Rules, that your appointment with the Harry Walker Agency LLC be subject to the following conditions:
• a waiting period of three months from your last day in ministerial office;
• you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;
• for two years from your last day in ministerial office, you should not become personally involved in lobbying the UK government or its arm’s length bodies on behalf of the Harry Walker Agency LLC (including parent companies, subsidiaries, partners and clients); nor should you make use, directly or indirectly, of your contacts in the government and/or ministerial office to influence policy, secure business/funding or otherwise unfairly advantage the Harry Walker Agency LLC (including parent companies, subsidiaries, partners and clients);
• for two years from your last day in ministerial office, you should not undertake any work with the Harry Walker Agency LLC (including parent companies, subsidiaries, partners and clients) that involves providing advice on the terms of, or with regard to the subject matter of a bid with, or contract relating directly to the work of, the UK government or its arm’s length bodies.
The advice and the conditions under the government’s Business Appointment Rules relate to your previous roles in government only; they are separate to rules administered by other bodies such as the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is your personal responsibility to understand any other rules and regulations you may be subject to in parallel with this Committee’s advice.
By ‘privileged information’ we mean official information to which a Minister or Crown servant has had access as a consequence of his or her office or employment and which has not been made publicly available. Applicants are also reminded that they may be subject to other duties of confidentiality, whether under the Official Secrets Act, the Civil Service Code or otherwise.
The Business Appointment Rules explain that the restriction on lobbying means that the former Crown servant/Minister ‘should not engage in communication with Government (Ministers, civil servants, including special advisers, and other relevant officials/public office holders) – wherever it takes place – with a view to influencing a Government decision, policy or contract award/grant in relation to their own interests or the interests of the organisation by which they are employed, or to whom they are contracted or with which they hold office’.
You must inform us as soon as you take up employment with this organisation, or if it is announced that you will do so, and we will publish this letter on our website.
Any failure to do so may lead to a false assumption being made about whether you had complied with the Rules.
You must inform us if you propose to extend or otherwise change the nature of your role as, depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary for you to make a fresh application.
Once the appointment has been publicly announced or taken up, we will publish this letter on the Committee’s website, and where appropriate, refer to it in the relevant annual report.- Annex – Material information 4.1 The role You said you would undertake speaking engagements arranged via HWA. You said the agency will begin exploring engagements once you have left office, but at this time you do not have any information about which organisations you will be speaking to and being paid by. 4.2 Dealings in office HWA has no relationship with government. You said you did not meet with the company whilst in office, nor did you make any decisions specific to it. 4.3 Department Assessment The Cabinet Office confirmed the details you provided. The Cabinet Office said it has no concerns about this appointment, noting it is not uncommon for former ministers and senior Crown servants to join speaking agencies. The department recommended the standard conditions.
- This application for advice was considered by Jonathan Baume; Isabel Doverty; Sarah de Gay; Susan Liautaud; The Rt Hon Lord Pickles; Richard Thomas; and Mike Weir. Andrew Cumpsty and Lord Larry Whitty were unavailable. ↩
This observation about ‘interation’ is probably fair comment:
Jonathan Baume
Jonathan Baume is currently a member of the Board of the Health & Safety Executive; a Non-Executive Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulation and of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Until 2017 he was a Civil Service Commissioner, responsible for regulating appointment to the Civil Service to ensure it is on merit after fair and open competition. Jonathan also served as a member of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Council until 2014. Having started his career as a civil servant in the Department of Employment Group, he subsequently worked at the TUC specialising in employment law and equalities issues before joining the FDA, a trade union and professional association for senior public sector managers and professionals, where he served as General Secretary for sixteen years until 2012.
Isabel Doverty
Isabel Doverty was formerly Global Head of Human Resources, Wholesale Banking, at Standard Chartered Bank. She is also an independent member of the State Honours Committee and a Governor of the University of Bedfordshire. Throughout her private sector career she has held senior HR roles in the energy and financial services sectors, specialising in employee relations, organisational change, and executive level recruitment. Isabel recently completed her 5-year term as a Civil Service Commissioner.
Sarah de Gay
Sarah de Gay joined international law firm Slaughter and May in 1996, as a Corporate/M&A lawyer, and established its Compliance Department in 2008. She was appointed as Slaughter and May’s first General Counsel in 2015. Sarah was a founding member of the City of London Law Society’s Professional Rules and Regulation Committee (which she also chaired for a number of years) and a member of the Standards Committee of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Sarah recently stepped down as Slaughter and May’s General Counsel, and is now a Visiting Professor of UCL’s Faculty of Laws, an Independent Lay Member of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee and a Junior Warden of the City of London Solicitors’ Company (the livery company for City solicitors). She also has a role as a Special Adviser to Slaughter and May on regulatory matters.
Dr. Susan Liautaud
Dr. Susan Liautaud is Founder and Managing Director of Susan Liautaud & Associates Limited, an ethics advisory firm supporting global organisations and leaders in business, government, and the non-profit sector. She is also founder of The Ethics Incubator, a non-profit platform for broadening debate about ethics issues. She teaches at Stanford University; is Vice Chair of the Court of Governors of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); Chair of the LSE’s ethics policy committee and its Remuneration committee; and is an Advisory Board Member of LSE’s Marshall Institute. Susan currently serves on a several non-profit boards, including: member (and past Chair) of the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières US Advisory Board; Pasteur Institute; and the Global Supervisory Board of Care International. She started her career as a corporate lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell.
I don’t personally believe that Dr Philip Zimbardo from the Stanford Prison Experiment has any ethics. The legislative over-reach of draconian adoption legislation is an obscene example of cruel and unusual adult punishment of innocent and vulnerable children.
The legislative over-reach of draconian adoption legislation is the opposite of healthcare.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
P.S: This is quite interesting but only from the medicinal point of view:
The American Constitution is in many respects a strange beast, which is not to say that the Australian Constitution that is essentially only about a monarchy keeping their foot in the door is that much better. Australia is clearly seriously over-governed, with overpaid politicians and way too many quangos created as jobs for mates, with very little genuine consideration of what should be state or federal competencies all of which just adds unnecessary complexity for members of the public. One does wonder if the brazen inequality that calls itself the British monarchy were all to resign in the UK, if that would result in all the monarchists in Australia simply trying to co-opt members of a monarchy from other European countries. The fact there is a Head of State in Australia who is appointed by a British monarchy, so pretty much by the British Parliament, just beggars belief these days.
Donna Bugat 