Robert Latimer

August 8/2007
To the Supreme Court of Canada
For a Court that has ruled:
"The appellant might have done so by using a feeding tube to improve her health and allow her to take more effective pain medication, or he might have relied on the group home that Tracy stayed at just before her death. The appellant may well have thought the prospect of struggling on unbearably sad and demanding. It was a human response that this alternative was unappealing. But it was a reasonable legal alternative that the law requires a person to pursue before he can claim the defence of necessity. The appellant was aware of this alternative but rejected it."

It must be a real comfort to both of you involved in this Court's January 18/2001 decision to impose a life sentence upon me to see a parasite like Ellen Tarshis regurgitate the most crucial element of this Court's decision in the Victoria Times Colonist on July 23/2007:
"There were remedies for her pain that her parents rejected"

It is the sort of slander that just keeps flourishing like the little white lie theory.
I'm sure the "loved lemon merinque pie" claim would also be consistent with the mind-set of this Court in 2001 as well. Even when force fed through the required by law feeding tube Tracy was supposed to have had cut into her stomach.

As important as it must have been for you judges to feed the self-righteous rhetoric of old harpies like Ellen Tarshis, you also owe it to Canadians in general to be honest in you pronouncements, or denouncements of people.

If this Court needs such a legal instrument to cinch up a life sentence for someone, this Court should understand just what that legal instrument (more effective pain medication) is, or if it even exists.

I have repeatedly since June 24/2001 written this Court asking for an IDENTITY of the "more effective pain medication" or "better pain management" this Court claimed "was available" to treat what this Court found was "a medically manageable physical or mental condition" our daughter was suffering.

The biggest reason why this Court cannot give me an answer to my frequently asked question is that the claim of such a medication is a fraudulent fabrication of the Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors to bolster the charges against me. Honest people would not continue to endorse bogus claims that generate such slander.