I have listed letters, and documents which I have have compiled from my ever-growing material I have put together. The page numbers are references to the page numbers in the book.
Note: This is not a book I have written, but a compilation of material I have put together ranging from letters & articles to court documents and transcripts. There is no monetary gain realized or intended by this book. It is only meant to supply factual information for any intersted parties.
For a printable version of the below documents, you can click on the .pdf or the .doc links.
The .pdf version requires Adobe Reader which can be downloaded for free here.
The .doc version requires Microsoft Word. If you do not have MS Word, you can download a free Word Viewer from Microsoft here.Finding Parts - .pdf version - .doc version
Page 46 ... A copy of the questionaire that was used to "CONFIRM GUILTY VERDICTS" was prepared by RCMP Officer Nick Hartle, and then prosecutor Randy Kirkham suggested in a written note to Hartle "the MK question should be more at the foot of the note". The questionaire was then covertly used to question potential jurors prior to the start of the first trial in 1994.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 110 … 35 pages of Dr. Dzus's testimony given at trial in
November 1994.
And again read into the second trial in 1996.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 145 … Criminal Reports 28 pages, The Supreme Court decision of
January 18/2001
.pdf version .doc versionPage 173 … A 2-page letter to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon on
July 30/2002.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 175 … A 2-page letter to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on
September 10/2002.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 178 … A 1-page letter to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on September 22/2002.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 180 … A 2-page letter to Justice minister Martin Cauchon on October 20/2002.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 182 … A 3-page letter to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on November 21/2002
.pdf version .doc version .Page 187 … A 4-page letter to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon on December 10/2002.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 192 … 2, 1-page letters to Senator Sharon Carstairs on
November 22/2002, and March 9/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 194 … A 7-page letter to the Supreme Court on
June 2/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 201 … A 1-page letter to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon on
June 2/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 202 … A 1-page letter to Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on June 2/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 205 … A 1-page letter to the Supreme Court on
July 20/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 207 … A 1-page letter to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon on
November 4/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 208 … A 1-page letter to the Supreme Court on
December 4/2003.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 209 … A 1-page letter to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler on
February 9/200
.pdf version .doc versionPage 211 … A 2-page letter to the Supreme Court on
June 24/2004.
.pdf version .doc versionPage 213 … A 1-page letter to the Supreme Court on
November 4/2004
.pdf version .doc versionPage 214 … A 1-page letter to the Supreme Court on
March 22/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 217 … A letter toTo Irwin Cotler Justice Minister of Canada on April 10/20
.pdf version .doc versionPage 219 … A letter to To Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin on
April 24/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 221 … A letter to the Supreme Court on
June 3/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 224 … A letter to the Supreme Court on
July 2/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 227 … A letter to the Supreme Court on
July 15/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 229 ... A letter to the Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin
August 4/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 232 ... A letter to the Supreme Court on
August 29/2005
.pdf version .doc versionPage 236 ... A letter to the Supreme Court on
December 04 /2
.pdf version .doc versionPage 239 ... A letter to the Supreme Court on
March 30/2006
.pdf version .doc versionPage 245 ... A letter to the Supreme Court on
August 24 /2006
.pdf version .doc versionPage 246 ... Letter To Liberal Leadership Candidate Ken Dryden
August 25 /2006
.pdf version .doc versionPage 251 Letter To the Supreme Court of Canada
September 30/2006
.pdf version .doc versionPage 252 Letter To the Supreme Court of Canada
October 30/2006
.pdf version .doc versionPage 253 Letter To the Supreme Court of Canada
March 22/2007
.doc versionPage 257 Letter To Federal Justice Minister Robert Nicholson
March 22/2007
.doc versionPage 258 Letter to Federal Justice Minister Robert Nicholson
August 8/2007
.pdf version .doc versionPage 262 August 8/2007
An example of medical fabrications are regurgitated by the self righteous
.pdf version .doc versionPage 263 Letter to the Supreme Court of Canada
August 8/2007
.pdf version .doc version
There has been $301,586.84 put into the 2 accounts set up for us by thinking people all across this country, as well as many other countries over the last 10 years. We are very grateful to the thousands of thinking people that do not agree with the Supreme Court's very flawed decision. Other people have sent money to me in prison, as well as a 4000.00 travel account with Westjet for Laura, and so many others have helped out in so many different ways. The thousands of letters that have been sent to us with so many well-thought out comments have also been very encouraging.
As close as I can recall from memory my legal expenses have been about 250,000.00 to 300,000.00 dollars or so. Or about the equivalent of what a Supreme Court Judge is paid for a year of his or her expertise. I'm sure that would not seem like much to a Supreme Court Judge. But it was a substantial cost to us. I also think that their findings have been very well paid for over the years, and they should feel obligated to share their medical expertise with the ever-generous Canadian taxpayers that have funded them so well in the past, and continue to fund them so generously now.
If anyone is interested in getting a copy of my now 200+ pages of material it can be ordered for 25 dollars at Robert Latimer Trust Fund Box 487, Wilkie, Sask. S0K 4W0
.
In Dr. Duzs' testimony on pages 110 to 144 I have underlined how Dr. Duzs was trying to explain Tracy's condition, and how these explanations evolved into the January 18/2001 Supreme Court decision on the next pages 145 to 172. There seems to be some glaring misunderstandings. The Supreme Court seems to mention a "feeding tube" in tandem with a "more effective pain medication", or "better pain medication".
I first began writing to the Supreme Court on June 24/2001 (page 5) asking for an identity of the "more effective pain medication" the Court used so frequently in their January 18/2001 decision. I have continued to write not just the Supreme Court because they are obviously not able to identify the "more effective pain medication" they frequently relied on to support their January 18/2001 decision. But also to Justice Ministers McLellan (page 7), "Your endorsement of this prosecution must lead people to believe you understood the case against me". And later Justice Ministers Cauchon (pages 173, 180, 187, 201, and 207) and, Cotler (page 209).
My first three letters to these Justice Ministers were answered by Richard G. Mosley,
Q.C. Assistant Deputy Minister Criminal Law Policy and Community Justice Branch on pages 9, 179, and 191. His replies read:
"It may be helpful for you to know that the Attorney General of Canada intervened in your case before the Supreme Court of Canada solely to support the constitutionality of the provisions of the Criminal Code that were being challenged and did not present arguments on other issues" (page 9).
"The Attorney General of Canada cannot speculate on what the Supreme Court of Canada meant by particular wording in their judgement" (page 179).
"As I have indicated in previous correspondence, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada cannot speculate on what the Supreme Court of Canada meant by particular wording in their judgment" (page 191).
I have written four letters to Saskatchewan Premier Calvert. A typical answer from him would be what appears on page 177: "This is not a finding that either the Minister of Justice or I can interfere with."
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wrote me on May 4/2004 "As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I cannot speak for the Supreme Court by explaining the reasons for a decision it has rendered".
My last answer from the Supreme Court was in a July 7, 2003 letter on page 204 which reads: "I regret to inform you that there is nothing further the Court can do for you."
All of these authorities are ready and eager to act or speak against us in displays of solidarity with the malicious Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors to endorse the fraudulent medical claims these prosecutors fabricated, and used against us.
I don't think my request is unreasonable. I don't think this group of authority is a voice for the many people surveyed on pages 55 to 79. Who are these authorities acting for?
I believe the ever generous Canadian taxpayer has funded his or her own elimination from the judicial process when the authorities have used these deceptive tactics to curtail the jury's input into the outcome of the 2 trials I have been through.
