Robert Latimer
August 29/2005
To the Supreme Court
of Canada
You people are not being honest in your continued endorsement of the findings
of your January 18/2001 decision.
It is hard to believe that after having been made aware of the fraudulent
fabrications of the Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors this Court
has endorsed, that this Court can continue to oversee the enforcement of
the abuses that are done to us.
Again I am bringing to your attention the claim that there was "a more
effective pain medication" we could have given our daughter, and again
I am asking just what is the identity of this "medication"?
This claim of "a more effective pain medication" appears on lines
73, 325, and 661 of this Court's January 18/2001 decision, and on pages
146, 152, and 160 of my material.
The claim "better pain management was available" appears on lines
128, and 652 of this Court's January 18/2001 decision, and on pages 148,
and 160 of my material.
The claim of "a medically manageable physical or mental condition"
appears on lines 135, and 697 of this Court's January 18/2001 decision,
and on pages 148, and 161 of my material.
It is my hope, as faint as it might seem at this stage, that this Court
is principled enough to allow me the accused person a clear understanding
of the arguments, or legal instruments used against me.
It is clear that after you allowed so many to intervene allocating so much
time for them to yap away in front of you promoting their self-righteous
selves, while Chief Justice McLachlin urged the lawyer representing me to
hurry along with his remarks, that this Court was prejudiced. What I did
was the right thing to do.
You people have a real problem trying to understand that, and you damage
the open opportunity for others to gain an understanding of the situation
we faced, with your continued endorsement of the fraudulent fabrications
that distort the situation we actually faced.
It is very obvious that if left to you people I would be punished severely.
But my future was supposed to have been decided by a jury. You people have
continually overseen the corruption of the jury system.
Justice Binnie's calling the medication fabrication a "side issue"
after this Court relied on the fraudulently fabricated medical claims so
frequently on the lines of it's January 18/2001 decision as shown above
is a clear indication of just how careless this Court was to conclude that
Tracy's condition was:
"It was thought she experienced a great deal of pain" line 318
page 152.
"Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus."
line 331 page 152.
After reading Dr. Dzus' testimony on line 548, page 131:
This Court was very mistaken on the seriousness of Tracy's condition, and
was in fact eager to be led by the fraudulent fabrications of the Saskatchewan
Justice Department prosecutors.
"Her breathing
became easier in that she wasn't as congested and
she did not vomit as much so that quality of life
improved but now instead of being a flexible person
that can move side to side, forward and back, we
have somebody who is literally very stiff from the
top of her spine right down to the pelvis so she
has lacked - - she now lacks that mobility so that
takes away some of that quality of life, plus the
fact that she has lost weight in the summer prior
to her death and that she was in severe pain from
what we believe was her hip I would say that her
quality of life in the last year of life was
deteriorating."
Or on line 674 of Dr. Dzus' testimony on page 136 of my material:
"- Tracy had severe pain. To control it with
drugs would mean using fairly powerful drugs. She
already was on anticonvulsant, antiepileptic
medications to control her seizures. Combining
drugs can have side effects. One can add onto the
other. She already in the past was having
difficulty with swallowing. We know that she had
difficulty clearing some secretions from her lungs,
nose and that and these children can gag on their
own secretions. If you depress, by using strong
drugs, some of these very primitive reflexes then
you put her at risk for aspirating, getting the
contents of stomach food into her lungs and ending
up aspirating pneumonia, ending up very sick,
depressing the respiratory function that, already
- -"
If this Court is so confident that it has discovered a "more effective
pain medication" what could possibly be the reason for not identifying
this medication?
It was this Court's decision, along with previous Court decisions against
us that led professors Krutzen and Lefcourt to write what appears on pages
52, and 80 of my material:
"Serving on a jury does not mean one has been granted 'time out' from
playing the moral game. There are no 'time outs' in playing the moral game
even when one is serving on a jury. If anything, members of a jury have
a special moral duty to see to it that justice and not just 'the law' is
served. In the Latimer case members of the jury did just the opposite. 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."
"Is it any wonder that perpetrators of torture often threaten to torment
the children of their intended victim to have their way with him or her."
It seems that because Tracy was disabled this Court feels that it has the
right to demand that she undergo any and all medical treatment that comes
along. It is clear that most Canadian's would not want this Court deciding
on what their future medical treatments will be.
It is no wonder that a jury system was created so long ago. People do not
want to be stuck with a corrupt authority such as I ran into. My future
should be decided by a jury, which is properly selected.
If this Court can find the courage to be honest about it's erroneous medical
claims, and has the integrity to correct itself, it will allow a jury to
consider my future in a new trial.
If a new trial is ordered I would hope it will take place here on southern
Vancouver Island, where I am now imprisoned. I really believe the Saskatchewan
Justice Department prosecutors should not enjoy home Court advantage, and
the opportunities to corrupt the judicial process as they have in the past
with their "confirming guilty verdicts".
This Court's continued failure to correct itself allows corruption, and
deceit to rule.
