December 05, 2014
To: Canada Judicial Council
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0W8
Re: This Judge’s criminal Conduct of Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CV-14-501847
Please find enclosed the complaint of Plaintiff, Tieguang Gao, total 14 pages, sent to you on December 5, 2014. Above were submitted to you pursuant to the Procedures of complaint of Canada Judicial Council.
Plaintiff: Tieguang Gao
Address: 2xx01-2xx8 Pender East, Vancouver BC. V6A1x7
Canada Judicial Council:
Accusing Judge Myers’s Criminal Conduct of Ontario Superior Court
This Canada appointed judge, F.L. Myers,J clearly knew that the two defendants, the court supervisor Joseph Doria and the court registrars publicly made frauds at the hearing of August 26, 2014 at Ontario superior court. In common intent, the judge Myers still fabricated fats and law, forged the court document 2014 ONSC 6497. The Judge stated that he saw the four volumes documents in this file but he did cover up the two volumes which were the case’s key documents. One was Details and Particulars and another was Evidence 61 items of the Details and Particulars. He did only state ” motion record and factum”. The judge Myers did conceal this case’s key Cause of Action existing in the file.
On October 14, 2014 and October 30, 2014, I had provided facts and evidences which proved that the two defendants, the court supervisor Doria and registrars, in common intent, made frauds and forgery occurred at the court and until the court. The court staff had signed receiving these Documents. Two Submissions of October 30, 2014 was separately mailed to the Judge Myers and the court registrar by registered mails. The Judge Myers clearly knew these frauds and forgery occurred at the court and until the court but he still fabricated facts and law, forged the court document dated November 7, 2014, 2014 ONSC6497 which did deprive my all legal entitlements and money determined by the ARO’s Decision dated May 07, 2010.
1. Accusing Canada appointed Judge, Myers’s publicly criminal conduct. The Judge Myers, without lawful justification or excuse, fabricated facts and law, forged court document, stole the Rule 2.1. , framed up plaintiff. The forged document made by judge Myers deprived my legal motion which was approved and sealed by the court. The Canada appointed Judge Myers clearly knew that he does forge the court document dated November 7, 2014, 2014ONSC 6497 for framing up the plaintiff. The aim of Canada appointed judge Myers causes any person to use, deal with and act on it as if it were genuine. The Canada appointed judge Myers did not comply with the Law and Professional Ethics and Standard, and judge Myers illegal criminal activities and conduct did form the subject-matter of the offence.
2. The forged court document made by judge Myers fabricated facts and law, made the case’s false statements of material facts, framed up the plaintiff and deprived the plaintiff’s legal right exposing the two defendants’ illegal criminal activities occurred at the court and until the court. The Canada appointed judge Myers did forge the court document dated November 7, 2014, 2014 ONSC 6497 for concealing the defendants’ open crimes at Ontario superior court including the judge Myers’s Forgery and Fraud. The Canada appointed judge Myers is guilty that he commits Canada Criminal Code Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380 (1); 380.1 (1).
3. The Canada appointed judge Myers colluded with the court Manager Doria and the two defendants, in their common interest, fabricated facts and law, forged the court document, stole the Rule 2.1, framed up the plaintiff. Although this Judge Myers forged the court document and stole the Rule 2.1, he did also not comply with the Rule 2.1 Procedure for concealing their illegal criminal activities.
4. Rule 2.1 General Powers To Stay or Dismiss If Vexatious, Etc.
2.1. 01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
(2) The court may make a determination under (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule.
(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:
- The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.
- The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.
- If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may made the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.
- If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.
- A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party.
5. On October 25, 2014, I saw the judge Myers’s Forgery and stealing ” the Rule 2.1.” in my email. On October 30, 2014, I made a written submission pursuant to the Rule 2.1. 01(3) 2. 4. 5.. On November 6, 2014, the judge did sign receiving the written submission dated October 30, 2014.
6. On November 7, 2014, this Judge did forge the court document 2014ONSC6497 which did deprive my all entitlements and money determined by the ARO’s Decision. Although this Judge Myers did steal the Rule 2.1 for framing up the plaintiff , he evilly didn’t comply with the Rule 2.1. 01(2), (3)2. 4. 5. .
7. The court registrars detained my all documents including originating process documents (particulars 9 persons and evidence 61 items) submitted pursuant to the Rules 4.05 (4); 25.06 (8). Fact and evidence had proved that the court staff had signed receiving it on April 29, 2014. Particulars 1-9 and evidence-61 items were the case’s key documents submitted pursuant to the Rules 4.05 (4); 25.06 (8). This evidence is attached in following evidences.
FRP ASSESSMENT REPORT dated April 28, 2011
— Chronic headaches
— Post concussion syndrome
— Deconditioned state
FRP DISCHARGE REPORT dated July 8, 2011
Cervical range of motion:
Flexion Extension Rotation Side Flexion(R/L)
Intake 10 20 25/40 10/10
Discharge 30 30 50/50 20/20
Normal values 80 50 80/80 45/45
BARRIERS TO RETURN TO WORK,
– Decreased cervical and thoraco-lumbar range of motion-improving, but ongoing
– Decreased core stability and altered posture-improved
– Decreased balance-improved
– Headaches-improving, but ongoing
– Dizziness-improving, but ongoing
– Pain focused behavior-improving
– Decreased cervical and thoraco-lumbar range of motion –improving
– Decreased core stability and altered posture–improved
– Decrease balance-static balance is improved; working on dynamic balance
– Dizziness-improving, but brought on by deep squats
– Decreased functional capacities for lifting and carrying-ongoing
– Class 1 driver’s licence has expired-ongoing
– Need for improved pain and stress management to reduce reliance on rest, avoidance of
activities and medication use-resolving
– Low mood symptoms including agitation, irritability and low self-worth.–resolving
– Lack of confidence in ability to self-manage pain, stress and physical reactivation.-improving
PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
-It is recommended Mr. Gao incorporate learned pacing and body mechanics information into his future working and daily life.
-Mr. Gao has been referred to an agency in Vancouver to assist him in exploring possible vocational options.
TREATMENT TEAM MEMBERS
Dr. John Joffe, Physician; Dr. Warren Weir, Psychologist; Heather Watson, Physical Therapist; Tracy Krahn, Occupational therapist.
I must take medications relieving the pains and dizziness every day through to today 2014, and Left part of body always is numb as a result of permanent aggravation of injured cervical spine.
The WSIB FPC’s Commissioner directed me sending the fraudulent case to Ontario Ombudsman Office pursuant to the Ombudsman Act. 14. (1)(2). The ombudsman Office did investigate this fraudulent case filed on August 3, 2011. On April 10, 2012, the Office’s ERO Phillips made a false decision which forged the case’s key evidence dated September 28, 2007 and made false statements of material facts, altered the fraudulent case filed fitting to the Ombudsman Act. 14. 4(a). The Office rejected investigating the fraudulent case filed pursuant to the Ombudsman Act. 14. (1)(2).
First defendant, Ontario WSIB’s lawyer had admitted all allegations of Statement of Claim with concise statements of material facts. He had clearly pointed out “Should you process to obtain default judgment”. Evidence is the lawyer letter of April 29, 2014.
Over 5 pages’s evidence will be continued to be posted at this net.
Following evidences does support above Accusation
The court supervisor Doria colluded with the judge Myers and two defendants, without any lawful justification and excuse, canceled my Legal Motion approved and sealed by the court for covering up the two defendants, himself and corrupt judge Myers’ criminal activities.
The plaintiff’s legal Motion approved and sealed by this court. The legal Motion was exposing the two defendants’ illegal criminal activities occurred at this court. However, the court Manager Doria intentional canceled this legal Motion sealed by this court for covering up their criminal activities.
This court Manager Doria and the registrars did detain my originating process documents (the case’s details and particulars), as a result, the two defendants’ frauds occurred at this court did obtain success. The court Doria thought that their crimes were legal because they hold falsifying,forging court documents’ prerogative.
This court Manager Doria did temporarily stop his evil conspiracies, restore my legal Motion and clearly give his confirm to the legal Motion dated October 30, 2014.
This supervisor did have confirmed that he had restored my legal Motion approved and sealed by this court because he was afraid of his illegal criminal activities being exposed. On September 30, 2014, he intentional canceled my legal Motion for covering up the two defendants and his criminal activities.
This court Manager Doria made malice conspiracies. He colluded with two defendants and corrupt judge Myers, obtained this judge Myers’s evilly forged court document. This forged court document fabricated facts and law, made the case’s false statements of material facts, framed up plaintiff and evilly deprived the plaintiff’s legal entitlement and this lawsuit’s right.
The court Manager Doria and Canada appointed judge Myers colluded with two defendants, stole the Rule 2.1, framed up the plaintiff
Following evidence did prove that the plaintiff had served the case’s details and particulars to the two defendants on August 7, 2014 although this court’s supervisor Doria and registrars had detained the plaintiff’s all documents. The justice Allen at hearing of August 26, 2014 did speak to all persons listen ” Your file(plaintiff’s file) is empty”. Particulars please see – to complain the court staffs’s illegal activities.
Following is that this court did approve the plaintiff ‘s legal Motion and this Form was sealed by this court.
This is this court’s genuine document.
This is that this court staff did sign receiving the plaintiff’s originating process documents(details and particulars).
This is that the WSIB staff did forge medical document. Please see underline part.
This is the WSIB genuine medical document provided by the WSIB Access Department.
This is the WSIB ARO’s CONCLUSION dated may 7, 2010 which did expose the WSIB staffs and leaders’ frauds and forgery.
This is the plaintiff’s Claim Form6 which was detained by the WSIB staffs. Second defendant, the Ombudsman Office had forged this evidence. Please see particulars- the Office staff8.
The WSIB FPC did direct the plaintiff sending this fraudulent case to the Ombudsman Office in light of the Ombudsman Act 14. (1)(2).
This is the justice Allen’s decision at hearing of August 26, 2014 which did openly expose the two defendants’ frauds and illegal criminal activities. Details please see Ontario ombudsman office and Ontario wsib’ criminal facts and evidences (the webside’s (1)(2)(3).
This letter did prove that the two defendants’ frauds. Please see underline part.
This is that the WSIB’s lawyer had admitted all illegal criminal activities stated. Please see the underline part and above particulars.