(8). CJC Executive Director Sabourin did bend law for personal gain, protect crimes

跟踪 ID

Canadian Judicial Council                                                                CJC File: 14-0405

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8                                                                 CJC File: 15-0024

To: Executive Director, Norman Sabourin                        CJC File: 15-0089

Fax: 613-288-1575                                   241-258 Pender E ST Vancouver,V6A1T7

Tieguang Gao, www.disclosedarkforce.com

May 29, 2015


Dear Executive Director, Norman Sabourin


I am writing to you for clarifying these facts and evidences submitted to the CJC on December 5, 2014, CJC file number: 14-0405; on March 25, 2015, CJC file number: 15-0024 (the submission’s weight was 1.891 kg about 400 pages binding two volumes-facts and evidences; on May 1, 2015, CJC file number: 15-0089. Why are there three file numbers in the case? Which file does the case’s facts and evidences submitted is in ?


Please you confirm following Documents and Laws

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.


Questioning focuses;

  1. Had you seen above three Submissions when you made the two false response letters dated April 21, 2015 and May 19, 2015?


  1. Your false response letter dated April 21, 2015 which made false statements of material facts to my submission dated March 25, 2015.


  1. On May 1, 2015, I again sent a registered mail to you for further clarifying these facts and evidences submitted to you with respect to the judge F. L. Myers who colluded with the supervisor Doria and defendants, willfully made illegal criminal activities-Forgery and Frauds, etc.


  1. Your false response letter dated May 19, 2015 did not respond a word to the judge F. L. Myers’s illegal criminal activities demonstrated by facts and evidences. If you didn’t make the false statements and garble CJC bylaw, you would give reason pursuant to Canadian Legislation and Judges Act..


The CJC’s Principles of Judicial Conduct

…In making their decisions, judges must be and must appear to be impartial at all time.

…In all cases, judicial independence – the foundation stone of Canadian justice – is central to the process.



“…..No one in Canada is above the law. Everyone, no matter how wealthy or how powerful they are, must obey the law or face the consequences.”


“…The Canada legal system respects individual rights, while at the same time ensuring that our society operates in an orderly manner. An essential principle is that the same law applies to everybody, including police, governments and public officials, who must carry out their public duties according to the law.


  1. Again reiterate, I did accuse the federal appointed judge F. L. Myers of faking facts and laws, falsifying and forging court documents, committing Forgery, Frauds, Criminal Code: Forgery 366, 367, 368; Fraud 380.(1); 380.1 (1)(a)(c)(c.1)(e)(f) . Please double check above Submissions and give the response of transparency, integrity, impartiality pursuant to CJC’s Principles and Procedures, and you will be responsible for CJC’s reputation if it is issued.




Complainant: Tieguang Gao



Please see the director Sabourin made word play letter for concealing he detained the letters accusing his serious misconduct, protecting judge Myers’s crimes, making the false statements of material facts and Obstruction of Justice. 






The director of Communications and Registry Services of the Council made a fair letter, he requires the particulars and evidences of the federal appointed judge Myers’s criminal conduct. Please see underlined paragraphs.









This is registered fax.

10 thoughts on “(8). CJC Executive Director Sabourin did bend law for personal gain, protect crimes

  1. This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post.

    Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!

  2. I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up!
    I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back in the future.

    All the best

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *