Link to Robert's Letters further down on this page
July 17/2005
WE ALL DESERVE
"A REALISTIC APPRECIATION"
OF THE
"MORE EFFECTIVE PAIN MEDICATION".
I BELIEVE IT CAN AND SHOULD BE ACHIEVED.
In part 30 on page 13 of the Supreme Court's January 18/2001 decision shown on page 157 of MY ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT'S JANUARY 18/2001 DECISION, the Court explains how I need "a realistic appreciation of the alternatives open to a person".
The Supreme Court has again held to it's belief that my actions were criminal when they dismissed my formal motion on May 14/2002. And the Supreme Court is generally understood to answer to no one. But the purveyors and promoters of this "more effective pain medication" are still at work in their defence of law and order in our society. I have been writing to the Federal Justice Minister and the Saskatchewan government to get an identity of the much used "more effective pain medication" the Supreme Court relied on to eliminate the jury's consideration of the defense of necessity. What could possibly be the down side to openly explaining the "more effective pain medication" so often cited in the Supreme Court's decision, if it exists? If such a medication does exist wouldn't it be of the utmost importance to ensure that other parents watching their child suffer as Tracy was suffering, understand that "a more effective pain medication" existed. Or are these people concealing a much-used fraudulent claim.
If people read MY ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT'S JANUARY 18/2001 DECISION, they will see how I have written to the authorities to gain an understanding of the "more effective pain medication" we were supposed to have ignored. I can not get an honest reply to my question, what is the identity of the "more effective pain medication" the Supreme Court used to eliminate the jury's consideration of the defense of necessity? I believe it is important for ordinary average people to understand exactly what the government has in store for them, in the rare event they should end up in a situation such as Tracy was in. After all this is a decision bought and paid for by Canadian taxpayers, and it could possibly, but not very likely be something that any Canadian could be forced to comply with. The prosecutors were not short of resources when it came to fabricating and conveying the arguments of the existence of such a superior pain medication to the Courts. But casual speculation is far from reality. These arguments are not an accurate description of Tracy's problems, but are merely deceit pure and simple. No decision is anything more than the logic it is based on.
Robert Latimer
March, 2005
HOW COULD THERE BE ANY SUCH "RIGHT"?
(Line 905, page 166)"The appellant's argument is a broad one, that the accused person has some right to jury nullification, How could there be any such "right"?"
If I don't have the right to having a jury decide if my actions were criminal or not why can't I have the identity of the "more effective pain medication" this Court used to eliminate the jury's authority to decide the case against me?
This Court plainly states on line 530 of their January 18/2001 decision (page 157):
"It may be noted that the requirement involves a realistic appreciation of the alternatives open to a person;"
It is as if this Court is demanding that I have a realistic appreciation of the alternatives open to me. So, why can't I be told the identity "more effective pain medication", this Court has used so frequently against me?This Court writes on line 666 of their January 18/2001 decision (page 161):
"The appellant was aware of this alternative but rejected it."We were not and are still not "AWARE" of this "ALTERNATIVE", and don't know why this Court will not identify "this alternative".
HOW CAN THIS COURT CONTINUE TO ENDORSE THIS
CHICANERY?Locating parts of the book
SUPREME COURT JANUARY 18/2002 DECISION On pages 145 to 172 or under CRIMINAL REPORTS of this site.
DR. DZUS'S TESTIMONY On pages 110 to 144 Or on page 110 of this site.
DR. DZUS'S 35 pages of testimony that was given at my first trial in 1994, and read into the second trial, for she could not attend it for medical reasons.
The Eichmann Defence Page 52 2nd column 3rd paragraph "This is just another example of the Eichmann defence, the defence Adolf Eichmann gave when tried as a was criminal for his part in the Holocaust. But Eichmann's defence, "I was just following orders" did not morally excuse him from what he did and neither does it morally excuse the jury from the injustice they have inflicted upon Robert Latimer and his family."
When DIETRICH BONHOEFFER CHOSE TO DIE RATHER THAN TO COMPLY WITH NAZI DEMANDS, we regard him as heroic. Why? Because he demonstrated that how we live is more important than simple existence."" Prof. LefCourt wrote on page 80.
"It is not because JUSTICE MATTERS that we care, rather , it is because we care that Justice matters." Prof. Krutzen page 47.
PROFESSOR KRUTZEN Has written more than the 11 parts featured in my present material on page 47. The 11 parts are:
The Case of Robert and Tracy Latimer
The Question of Punishment
The Matter of Consent
The Abuse of the Disabled
The Rhetoric of Slippery-Slope Arguments
Drawing The Line
Quality of Life' Decisions
The Role of Emotions
Misplaced Duty and Compassion
A Parliamentary 'Free Vote' - A Matter of Individual Conscience
Conclusion
Morally castrated Page 52 ROLE OF EMOTIONS (PART)last line in column 1 "In following the judge's orders not to let their emotions play a part in their deliberations and in agreeing to be guided solely by reason and the law, the members of the jury morally castrated and dehumanized themselves in the process."
"NO PRICE IS TOO HIGH TO PAY FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE TO PAY IT NOR IS ANYTHING IMPOSSIBLE FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT." Page 52 paragraph 1.QUALITY OF LIFE DECISIONS (PART)PROFESSOR LEFCOURT Has written more than the 1 page featured on page 80.
The QUESTIONNAIRE that the RCMP used to "CONFIRM GUILTY VERDICTS is on page 46.
NATIONAL PUBLIC SURVEYS are on pages 55 to 79of the book.
Parts of the Jan. 18/2001 Decision
"no Air of reality to any of the 3 requirements for necessity" Page 147 line 123
"more effective pain medication" line 73 page146.
"better pain management was available" line 128 page 148.
"more effective pain medication" line 325, page 152.
Better pain management was available" line 652, page 160.
"more effective pain medication" line 661, page 160.
"a medically manageable physical or mental condition" line 135, page 148.
"a medically manageable physical or mental condition" line 697, page 161.
Anarchy Page 157 line 505 "that would "very easily become simply a mask for anarchy"".
Aware Page 161 line 666 "The appellant was aware of this alternative but rejected it."
BREAKING A FINGER line 543 page 158 "like the example given in Perka of the person who blows up a city to avoid breaking a finger.
CANCEL OUT THEIR ULTIMATE IMPACT On page 170 line 1071 "In this regard it is possible that prior to gauging the sentence's appropriateness in light of an appreciation of the particular circumstances weighed against the gravity of the offence, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances might well cancel out their ultimate impact (Morrisey, supra, at para. 40). Indeed, this is what occurs in this case.
CHARTER CHALLENGE Page 169 line 1020 "Mr. Latimer's challenge to their overall constitutionality was put forward in the alternative but was not pressed forcefully since no substantive argument on point was offered."
Community Standards Page 147 line 120 "The test must be objective as the test is a matter of community standards infused with constitutional standards such as, in this case, the s. 15(1) equality rights of the disabled."
Page 159 line 594 "Evaluating the nature of an act is fundamentally a determination reflecting society's values as to what is appropriate and what represents a transgression."
Page 159 line 608 "The proper perspective, however, is an objective one, since evaluating the gravity of the act is a matter of community standards infused with constitutional considerations (such as, in this case, the s. 15(1) equality rights of the disabled)."
Page 171 line 1095 "the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law. {Emphasis in original.}
Denunciation Page 171 line 1098 "Furthermore, denunciation becomes much more important in the consideration of sentencing in cases where there is a "high degree of planning and premeditation, and where the offence and its consequences are highly publicized, [so that] like-minded individuals may well be deterred by severe sentences":
"Her LIFE was not in its final stages" line 330. Page 152.
"She was not terminally ill." Line 75 page 146.
Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus. Line 331, page 152
HIGHLY PUBLISIZED Page 171 line 1100 "Furthermore, denunciation becomes much more important in the consideration of sentencing in cases where there is a "high degree of planning
and premeditation, and where the offence and its consequences are highly publicized, [so that] like-minded individuals may well be deterred by severe sentences":
How could there be any such right Page 166 line 904 "The appellant's argument is a broad one, that the accused person has some right to jury nullification, How could there be any such right?"
"While the trial judge's approach was imperfect, the benchmark for measuring trial fairness is not perfection."
Mayo Clinic Page 138 line 733
Tracy enjoyed MUSIC, BONNFIRES, BEING WITH HER FAMILY AND THE CIRCUS." Page 152 line 331.
MOST SERIOUS LEVEL OF MORAL BLAMEWORTHINESS Line 1044 Page 170.
Realistic appreciation of the alternatives open to a person Page 157 line 530 "It may be noted that the requirement involves a realistic appreciation of the alternatives open to a person:'
"she was in severe pain from what we believe was her hip" Page 131 line 558.
"Tracy had severe pain. To control it with drugs" Page 136 line 674.
"It was thought she experienced a great deal of pain." Page 152, line 331.
Surely the Supreme Court of Canada could except that Tracy would have pain if someone cut the top ¼ of her thighbone off.
Allowing a jury to decide if my actions were criminal or not was a very real problem for the prosecution dating back to 1994 when the R. C. M. P. went about "confirming guilty verdicts" before the first trial of me.
In legal terms it is called the defence of necessity. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the defence of necessity could not be put to a jury, because a "more effective pain medication", or "better pain medication was available". The finding that this superior medication existed negated all 3 of the requirements that needed to exist for the Courts to allow the defence of necessity to be put to a jury.
If there is no doubt that my ending Tracy's life was a crime, why are these wizards of legal argument so reluctant to identify the "more effective pain medication", or the better pain management" they claim "was available". I do wish we could have relied on something better than regular strength Tylenol to treat Tracy's pain. But the "better pain medications" and "more effective pain medication" are only bogus fabrications by the Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors designed to enhance their arguments against us. The Supreme Court should feel obligated to understand, and verify their findings before they imprison someone for life.
I have listed the letters, and things I have included from my ever-growing material I have put together below:
NOTE: for a printable version, 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.
Page 46 ... A copy of the questionaire that was prepared by prosecutor
Randy Kirkham and was covertly administered to prospective jurors
by the RCMP.
The prosecutor Randy Kirkham was later charged with
obstructing justice, but was later found not guilty.
Here is a link to a CBC News site.
.pdf version .doc version
Page 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 version .Page 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 9/2004
.pdf version .doc version .Page 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 version
Page 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 10/2005
.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 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 213 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.
