Robert Latimer
October 20/2002

To Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon
I am not asking you to speculate as to the identity of the "more effective medication" the Supreme Court relied on to eliminate the jury from any meaningful participation in deciding if my actions were criminal or not. I am asking you or your office to clearly identify the "more effective medication" the Supreme Court used to eliminate the jury from any meaningful participation in deciding if my actions were criminal or not.
These claims are not substantiated by Dr. Duzs' testimony, as claimed by the prosecutors.
For the courts to stray from using substantiated facts to convict me, and allow a gang of judicial predators to prevail in denouncing my actions with fallacious arguments is wrong.
This decision is an insult to most Canadians, portraying them as sadistic butchers demanding the mutilation of a helpless child just to prolong her life while leaving her in terrible pain (line 16 of page 42 of the booklet I sent you). And of course all of this is perfectly acceptable to the Canadian Justice system because of the Supreme Court's claim "a more effective pain medication was available". I can understand why you would want to support this decision to avoid any more discussion on the interference of the jury selection process (line 11 of page 16, [line 20 of page 65, and line 14 of page 67 not included in this revision], of the booklet I sent you).
This decision is wrong. It is wrong because it is based on false claims. If you and your office can not sort out and clarify the problems of this decision, what is your purpose?
Your office took an active roll in promoting the severity of my punishment. The active participation of your office intervening against me would lead people to believe your office understood the arguments against me. For your office to now state any awareness of such an argument now would only be speculation is nothing more than an admission of incompetence.
Your office should be prepared to act on behalf of all Canadians. For your office to join such an aggressive gang of judicial predators with no understanding of the core issues was openly biased at the time. For your office to show reluctance now to gain an understanding of it's past actions is dereliction of public trust.