Robert Latimer
February 9/2004

To Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler
I am hoping that you can respond to my request. I have had a hard time getting an answer from your predecessors. I can't believe that not one person of authority can answer my frequently asked question.
What is the identity of the "more effective pain medication" so frequently relied on by the Supreme Court in their January 18/2001 decision?
To you now and to your predecessor Martin Cauchon I have written the following on November 4/2003:
I have included a copy of the Supreme Court's January 18/2001 decision, and I have numbered the lines of it, including the title.

The Court states "more effective pain medication" on line 73. [page 146]
The Court states "better pain management was available" on line 128. [page 148]
The Court states "more effective pain medication" on line 325. [page 152]
The Court states "better pain management was available" on line 652. [page 160]
The Court states "more effective pain medication" on line 661. [page 160]

It has now been 10 years since I was arrested, and the authorities started to work on us, and I am now writing you again to get an exact definition of this claim made in the judgement that I do not understand.
As I have tried to make your office aware of in the past, I do not understand what medication the Supreme Court is citing these 5 times in their decision against me. I understand how the Supreme Court could not very well adhere to their decision as an enforceable ruling if this medical claim were realized as fraudulent.
I also realize that it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to then issue a new set of reasons to eliminate a jury from considering the defence of necessity, if the best reasons that they had for eliminating the defence of necessity from my defence were now gone.
I have included a copy of my many attempts to get an answer to this and other questions.
I hope you are capable of answering my question. What is the identity of the "more effective pain medication" the Supreme Court cites 5 times in its January 18/2001 decision?