To:The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin
Canadian Judicial Council CJC Originating File:14-0405,other
Facsimile: 613-288-1575 15-0024,15-0089,15-0142,15-0206
258 pender ST E Vancouver
BC V6A1T7; Tieguang Gao
www.disclosedarkforce.com and corruptgovernmentofficer.com
total-11 pages August 31, 2015
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chairperson of CJC
I am writing to you for accusing CJC executive director Norman Sabourin publicly destroyed CJC by laws, Canada Legislation and the Judges Act. He refused investigating this federally appointed judge Myers’s open crimes. He made the case’s false statements of material facts (four times) for personal gain. Attached sixth letter submitted to the director Sabourin.
CJC’s executive director Norman Sabourin (director) concealed Ontario superior court judge Myers’s illegal criminal facts and evidences and made the case’s false statements of material facts for personal gain.
The federally appointed judge Myers’s criminal facts and evidences which are posted in the site’s (1) “ The newest article (April 03, 2017) Canada Federally Appointed Judge Myers should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(b) to (d) of Canada Judge Act.”
Accusing the federally appointed Judge Myers’s crimes:
- Canadian Federally appointed judge Myers colluded with defendants and court registrars, fabricated facts and law, stole law, framed up plaintiff.
- This judge Myers did forge the court document 2014 ONSC 6497 by fabricating facts and law. In the forged court document 2014 ONSC 6497, he forged the Conclusion of ONSC 4962 by erasure, alteration and addition for concealing already criminal conspiracies. He did protect defendants’ criminal activities (Defendants made frauds during Hearing of August 26, 2014 under the court registrars’ evil help) occurred at Ontario superior court.
- This judge Myers did commit Criminal Code Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380 (1); 380.1 (1) Federally appointed judge Myers did make use of forged court documents and fraud means already depriving my legal right and my money determined by the ARO’s Decision. Plaintiff (me) who has lost the legal right and the money determined due to the judge Myers’s Forgery and Fraud is entitled to file an accusation for judge Myers’s Forgery and Fraud conduct against his acting fraudulently pursuant to 65(2)(b) to (d) of Canada Judge Act. Judge Myers’s Forgery and Fraud conduct must charge a punishment and public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.
- This judge Myers did publicly destroy Canada Legislation and laws, become a hatchet man of persons in authority and interested parties, destroy the Dignity of Canada Law, massacre Canada Law as a federally appointed judge. This is an uncontested fact by evidences. This federally appointed judge Myers openly criminal conduct is very very terrible matter which was that he fabricated facts and law, forged court documents and framed up plaintiff for personal gain, and in law formula, it is a very very terrible phenomenon. The judge Myers publicly fabricated facts and law, forged court documents and framed up plaintiff, how does Canadian Society Order be managed???
- The Criminal Allegations surrounding the federally appointed judge Myers are so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently destroyed to render the judge Myers incapable of executing the judicial office. I am requesting that an inquiry be commenced to determine whether judge Myers should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(b) to (d) of the Judge Act.
Details and particulars please see my second submission dated March 25, 2015.
Ontario WSIB’s Appeals Resolution Officer and the WSIB’s lawyer did prove that the director Sabourin committed Obstruction of Justice, the federally appointed judge Myers publicly committed Canadian Criminal Code; Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380 (1); 380.1 (1). The Ontario WSIB is first defendant.
Please see following Evidences;
Parliament created the Canadian Judicial Council, giving it power to investigate and rule on complaints about the conduct of federal appointed judges.
Judicial accountability: Judicial accountability ensure that is rendered according to the law. Judicial accountability measures are essential to protect the proper application of the Rule of Law, a cornerstone of Canada’s constitutional democracy.
Judicial independence does not give judges the right to do whatever they wish. Many measures exist to ensure that judges are held accountable, include:
* The absolute requirement that cases be decided in open court according to the law and the evidence;
* The duty to provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, which will be available in the public domain;
* The obligation to decide cases according to the evidence and the law;
* Accountability to the public interest for independent decision-making bases upon established and discernable principles of law, and
* The possibility of appeal of their decisions to a higher court.
Judges are independent but remain accountable for their actions:
* Court proceedings are open to the public;
* Journalists and citizens can judge for themselves whether justice has been done. They are free to debate and criticize a judge’ s decision….
The conduct of judges, inside and outside of their courtrooms, can also be investigated by federal or provincial judicial councils that have been given formal investigating powers to account for their behavior and impose measured of recommend sanctions to be taken by the proper authorities.
For all of these reasons judges are, and are seen to be, accountable for their adjudicative functions:
* They have sworn an oath to render justice according to law;
* Their impartiality and independence is constitutionally enshrined; * Their independence, impartiality and integrity are presumed as a matter of law; * They hear case, and render judgment in public; * Their decisions are subject to appeal; * Their reasons are published and may be openly criticized in the press, academic journals or other public discourse, and * Their conduct as judges, as distinct from their judgments, if found wanting, may be the subject of investigation and sanction by federal and provincial judicial councils.
Accountability provides a “check and balance” to satisfy the community that the trust respond in its judiciary is deserved and that respect for the administration of justice is well-founded. It ensures that the authority of judges, whether as individuals or as an institution, is not abused.
Such public accountability anchors public confidence in the independence and impartiality of Canada’s judiciary. Thus accountability acts as a safeguard to preserve judicial independence and provide judicial impartiality.
The director Sabourin detained the case’s facts and evidences, made the false statements of material facts:
Original-P2.“Following careful consideration of your complaint, Chief Justice MacDonald is of the view that (1)your complaint is in reality a disagreement with the judge’s decisions. (2)A disagreement with a judge’s exercise of judicial discretion or with his decision-making is not an issue of conduct…..Chief Justice MacDonald also advises (3)that impartiality is key to the judicial process and is presumed…..(4)this presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, (5)and the law does not easily evoke the possibility of bias in a judge, whose authority depends upon that presumption. (6)The person who alleges bias must be in a position to demonstrate the real or apparent lack of impartiality of the judge. (7)This requires credible evidence and cannot rest on a mere allegation. Your personal opinion or your disagreement with the judge’s decisions are not evidence of bias.”
Expose the director Sabourin’s fraud:
CJC Originating File: 14-0405. This director Sabourin again made two CJC File No, 15-0024 and 15-0089. It is unknown where genuine facts and evidences are. Two times wrote to the director Sabourin for the facts and evidences but he didn’t respond a word for his false statements and frauds.
The director’s Fraud (1) “your complaint is in reality a disagreement with the judge’s decisions.”
Note: I did accuse that this judge Myers willfully falsified the Conclusion of the court document 2014 ONSC 4962 by erasure and addition. I did accuse that this judge Myers forged the court documents 2014 ONSC 6100 and 2014 ONSC 6497. This judge committed Forgery and Fraud, Criminal Code: Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380. (1); 380.1 (1)(a)(c),(1.1),. The facts and evidences were existing in the CJC File. CJC Originating File: 14-0405, this director Sabourin made again two CJC file No: 15-0024 and 15-0089. It is unknown that my Accusing of 1.891 kg-400 pages facts and evidences are existing which File.
This judge F. L. Myers did commit Forgery
- (1) who made a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing any thing, whether within Canada or not.
Making false document
(2) making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.
When forgery complete
(3) Forgery is complete as soon as a document is made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1), notwithstanding that the person who makes it does not intend that any particular person should use or act on it as genuine or be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or refrain from doing anything.
- Every one who commits forgery
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 367; 1994, c. 44, s. 24; 1997, c. 18, s. 24.
Marginal note: Use, trafficking or possession of forged document
- (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged,
(a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine;
(b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine;
(c) transfers, sells or offers to sell it or makes it available, to any person, knowing that or being reckless as to whether an offence will be committed under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) possesses it with intent to commit an offence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Marginal note: Punishment
(1.1) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Please contrast 2014 ONSC 4962 Document  Conclusion and this judge’s forgery :
2014 ONSC 4962 Document, CONCLUSION made by Justice Allen
“ If I were to have considered the other grounds on which to challenge the claim, I would have found the pleadings wholly insufficient as raising no reasonable cause action against both defendants. There is such a deficiency of detail and particulars in the claim, there would be no reasonable chance of success at trial.”
*(The court supervisor Doria and registrars did detain my all documents including the details, particulars)
Forged 2014 ONSC 6497 Document made by the judge Myers
“ She held that the Statement of Claim alleged no reasonable reason of action and suffered from such a deficiency in detail and particulars that the claim had no reasonable chance of success at trial.
*(The judge had seen all documents and defendants’ criminal evidences mailed to this judge Myers again until his Forgery)
Note: ONSC 4962 Document did expose the two defendants colluded with this court supervisor Doria and registrars who detained my all documents submitted to this court pursuant to the Rule 4.05 (4); 25.06 (8) and made frauds conspiracy at the court hearing process. At August 26, 2014 of hearing, the justice Allen did speak to all persons “the plaintiff’s file is empty, registrars don’t file his documents in this file.” At August 26, 2014 of hearing, the two defendants forged the court document, made frauds by the help of the court supervisor Doria, registrars. Evidences was the court’s signature receiving my two times submissions; defendants’ forgery and frauds existing in the court file; the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeal Tribunal’ s letter did prove the defendants making frauds at the court, details and evidences please see the webside (8).
This judge F. L. Myers did commit Fraud.
- (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Marginal note: Minimum punishment
(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Marginal note: Sentencing — aggravating circumstances
380.1 (1) Without limiting the generality of section 718.2, where a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 380, 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall consider the following as aggravating circumstances:
(a) the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud committed was significant;
(c) the offence involved a large number of victims;
(c.1) the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation;
(e) the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement, or professional standard, that is normally applicable to the activity or conduct that forms the subject-matter of the offence; and
(f) the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud.
Details and particulars please see my second submission dated March 25, 2015.
The Director’s Fraud (2) “A disagreement with a judge’s exercise of judicial discretion or with his decision-making is not an issue of conduct…”
“a judge’s exercise of judicial discretion” is in the scope of facts and evidences, rather than Forgery, Fraud and framing up the plaintiff. Again reiterate, I accused this judge Myers’s Forgery and Fraud.
Fraud (3) “that impartiality is key to the judicial process and is presumed…..”
(CJC Background paper-P.17, first paragraph) “At the same time, as indicated, the application of the standard of impartiality to the judicial conduct review process must take into account the fact that the process remains investigative in nature.”
This director Sabourin did willfully conceal facts and evidences of this Accusing and made the false statements of material facts. I did mail the facts and evidences required by CJC to CJC. This mail’s weight was 1.891kg-400 pages and the mail was mailed to the CJC on March 28, 2015.
“and is presumed” does be in the scope of facts and evidences pursuant to law, rather than Forgery, Fraud and framing up the plaintiff. This director Sabourin, in their common interest, willfully made fraud against Law. Evidence:
Fraud (4) “this presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight,”
Did Forgery, Fraud and Framing up the plaintiff be this presumption of impartiality ? This presumption of impartiality does be in the scope of facts and evidences pursuant to law, rather than Forgery, Fraud and framing up the plaintiff. Where do this Accusing’s facts and evidences be ? This director Sabourin never responds a word to his frauds.
- Content of the Duty of Procedural Fairness (CJC)
The doctrine of procedural fairness is a fundamental component of Canadian administrative law. As a general principle, it requires that every decision affecting the rights, privileges or interests of an individual be made through fair procedures.30 The duty of procedural fairness is a common law doctrine and is protected under subsection 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. 31 Where more fundamental interests are engaged, specifically an individual’s life, liberty or security, procedural fairness enjoys constitutional status under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Principles of judicial conduct (CJC)
Indeed, an independent judiciary is the right of every Canadian and is carefully protected. Judges strive to reject any outside influence that may impact on their ability to make independent decisions.
In making their decisions, judges must be and must appear to be impartial at all times.
We expect judges to maintain a high standard of conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. When someone believes that a judge’s behaviour (not their decision) is of concern, or that a judge is not fit to sit on the Bench, a complaint can be made to the Canadian Judicial Council. In very serious cases, Parliament can remove a judge from office.
Fraud (5) “and the law does not easily evoke the possibility of bias in a judge, whose authority depends upon that presumption.”
Ethical Principles for Judges Canadian Judicial Council-The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin points out:
Indeed, the public’s respect for the rule of law depends largely on the confidence that they hold in their judges. Canadians expect that their judges will be competent, fair, courteous and efficient. Allegations of judicial misconduct must be addressed fairly and transparently. This is a key mandate of the Canadian Judicial Council.
- Impartiality and the Judicial Conduct Review Process (CJC)
The Federal Court has recognized that the actors involved in the judicial conduct review process of the CJC owe a duty of impartiality, not only to the judge whose conduct is being reviewed, but also to the complainant. It has stressed that, in applying the standard of impartiality, the specific context of the review process, including its investigative and ongoing nature, must be taken into account.63
Note: This director Sabourin did willfully conceal facts and evidence and made the false statements of material facts.
This Accusing mail which was 1.891kg-400 pages of facts and evidences required by the CJC was second time mailed to the CJC on March 28, 2015.
I required that this director Sabourin did respond and confirm the mail’s facts and evidences. This director Sabourin did not respond a word to the facts and evidence. This proved that he did conceal these facts and evidence for framing up the complainant (me). He did conceal originating CJC File NO 14-0405 dated January 19, 2014 and made two new CJC File NO 15-0024 dated April 21, 2015, CJC File NO 15-0089. Why did this director Sabourin make two new CJC File NO? Just because he did conceal genuine facts and evidences,
Fraud (6) “The person who alleges bias must be in a position to demonstrate the real or apparent lack of impartiality of the judge.”
Again reiterate, I accused this judge Myers colluded with this court supervisor Doria, registrars and the defendants-Ontario Ombudsman office and Ontario WSIB. This judge Myers did fake facts and laws making conspiracies for covering up this court’s supervisor Doria, registrars and the defendants’ illegal criminal activities. In their common interest and benefit, this judge Myers willfully falsified the Conclusion of the court document 2014 ONSC 4962 by erasure and addition. This judge Myers did fake facts and laws and frame up the plaintiff by the Forgery of the court documents 2014 ONSC 6100 and 2014 ONSC 6497. This judge committed Forgery and Fraud, Criminal Code: Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380.(1); 380.1 (1)(a)(c)(c.1)(e)(f). This judge F. L. Myers is Ontario Superior court’s judge. Details and particulars please see my second submission dated March 25, 2015.
Fraud (7)This requires credible evidence and cannot rest on a mere allegation. Your personal opinion or your disagreement with the judge’s decisions are not evidence of bias.”
I did accuse the judge Myers’s public crimes rather than the “bias”. The director Sabourin willfully play “word games” for concealing his frauds. I had submitted legal evidences which proved this judge Myers did commit Forgery and Fraud. I had required that this director Sabourin did confirm these evidences submitted to this director Sabourin but this director Sabourin did not respond a word to these legal evidences. This director Sabourin only made the false statements of material facts for protecting illegal criminal activities just as his above this paragraph.
Following is the director Sabourin’s fraudulent decisions.
The director garbled the CJC’s bylaw for his frauds. Please see the bylaw section 2.2: Original
“The Executive Director shall open a file when a complaint about a named, federally appointed judge made in writing is received in the Council office from any source, including from a member of the Council who is of the view that the conduct of a judge may require the attention of the Council. The Executive Director shall not open a file for complaints which, although naming one or more federally appointed judges, are clearly irrational or an obvious abuse of the complaints process.”
This director did erase the underline important part. Please this director explain that I accused the judge Myers committed Forgery and Fraud, Criminal Code: Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380.(1); 380.1 (1)(a)(c)(c.1)(e)(f). with facts and evidences, did my accusations be clearly irrational or an obvious abuse of the complaints process???? This director made four false decisions which didn’t respond a word to the judge Myers’s crimes that I had accused with facts and evidences. This director made six file numbers of the accusation, please this director explain that which does be genuine??????? Evidence is following;
The director Sabourin made each false decisions’s second page, following
Following is the CJC’s first letter from the director of communication and registry which is impartial. the letter did require facts and evidences, please underlined parts;
CJC this executive director Norman Sabourin as a high officer of Canada government concealed Ontario superior court judge Myers’s illegal criminal facts and evidences and made the case’s false statements of material facts for personal gain. The director Sabourin did bend law for personal gain, commit Obstruction of Justice and Frauds.
1.Defendant Ontario WSIB did colluded with my employer and reject providing the WSIB with legal jurisdiction pertaining to the claim and treatment of the injuries sustained as a result of the occupational injury of September 24, 2007. The WSIB forged five medical documents and the Claim File, made five fraudulent decisions and a time evil frauds, rejected carrying out Medical Legal Report dated June 11, 2008 arranged by the WSIB (This did result in my cervical spine into permanent aggravation and lose my Az driver licence), rejected carrying out the WSIB Appeals resolution Officer’s Decision dated May 7, 2010. The WSIB FPC did direct me submitting this fraudulent case to Ontario Ombudsman Office. Evidences were from the WSIB Access Department; Medical Legal Report; the Appeals Resolution Officer’s Decision which exposed the WSIB staffs’ illegal criminal facts. Seven leaders involved in the fraudulent case. The WSIB lawyer letter had admitted my accusations dated April 29, 2014 and given his instruction “Should you proceed to obtain default judgement”. Details and particulars please visit www.disclosedarkforce.com (WSIB)
Ontario WSIB’s Lawyer had proved the CJC director Sabourin and the judge Myers’s crimes. The WSIB is first defendant. Please see evidence;
Ontario WSIB’s Appeals Resolution Officer had proved the CJC director Sabourin and the judge Myers’s crimes. The WSIB is first defendant. Please see evidence;
- Defendant Ontario Ombudsman Office did investigate this fraudulent case pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 14. (1)(2). After nine months, the Office willfully made two jurisdictional errors which did alter this fraudulent case fitting to the Act 14. (4). The WSIB rejected payment my LOE and benefits and permanent aggravation’s compensation awarded by the ARO just because the Office willfully made jurisdictional errors. The office colluded with the WSIB each other in their common interest and personal gain, I had complained this office’s frauds to the Ombudsman Marin (N time) but he did never respond a word to his office’s illegal crime. Details and particulars please visit www.disclosedarkforce.com (2) (the office)
- I filed a lawsuit to Toronto courthouse. The two defendants colluded with the court’s supervisor Doria, registrars. The court’s supervisor Doria, registrars detained my all originating process documents including details and particulars and made evil conspiracies which was that the defendant forged the court document (Statement of Claim) for framing up plaintiff and made frauds at the court hearing. At the hearing of August 26, 2014, Justice Allen spoke to all persons “The plaintiff’s file is empty, the registrars don’t file his documents in the file”. Their frauds obtained success at the court by the help of the court supervisor Doria and registrars. Details and particulars please visit www.disclosedarkforce.com (the court staff and the two defendants’ crime facts and evidences)
- I complained the court staffs’ illegal activities to the court administrative office. The office Manager Barbara Krever made false response protecting the illegal activities. The Manager Barbara Krever wrote “I assure you all processes were followed correctly and if you have any specific concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 416- 326- 4581.” Details and particulars please visit www.disclosedarkforce.com (the administration office’s false response)
- I filed a motion exposing the defendants’ forgery and fraud criminal activities occurred at this court hearing. The court approved my motion and sealed the court. The court supervisor Doria illegally cancelled my legal motion exposing the defendants’ criminal activities. I sent him an intent lawsuit letter for his willfully illegal action and claimed $ 5000 for cost of this motion I spent. The supervisor Doria was afraid of the lawsuit. He restored my legal motion and gave a confirmation letter.
- After the supervisor Doria gave me this confirmation letter, he colluded with judge Myers, made conspiracies, framed up the plaintiff (me). This judge Myers faked fact and laws and framed up the plaintiff (me) by the Forgery of the court documents 2014 ONSC 6100 and 2014 ONSC 6497. This judge committed Forgery and Fraud, Criminal Code: Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380.(1); 380.1 (1)(a)(c)(c.1)(e)(f). This judge F. L. Myers is Ontario Superior court’s judge. Details and particulars please see my second submission dated March 25, 2015.
Both the court supervisor Doria and the judge Myers did willfully commit crime, details and particulars please visit www.disclosedarkforce.com (the supervisor and the judge)
Thank you so much for your time.
Complainant: Tieguang Gao