We now have the complete transcript of Bob's second trial in 1997
Letter
to prosecutor Dennis Cann by Lawrence Greenspon
June 12/2008
Letter
response to Lawrence Greenspon by Prosecutor Dennis Cann
July 15/2008
Letter
response to Lawrence Greenspon by Sask. director of Appeals Dean Sinclair
July 21/2008
Letter
to the Supreme Court of Canada
March 12/2009
Pain Management
And Feeding Tube Fantasies
Letter to the Supreme
Court by Dr. D.B. Stewart. MD, FRCSC.
Written in 2002, but newly added to this website
August 8/2007
Robert Latimer
Letter to the Supreme Court of Canada
August 8/2007
An example of medical fabrications are regurgitated by the self righteous
Letter to the Victoria Times Colonist
by Ellen Tarshis
August 8/2007
Robert Latimer
Letter to Federal Justice Minister Robert
Nicholson
March 22/2007
Robert Latimer
Letter
To Federal Justice Minister Robert Nicholson
This list is just
a few of the latest letters writtten by Robert.
A more complete list of letters and documents can be found here.
Robert Latimer
December 5/2004
This web-site was created so I will have better access to for posting some of the things I have continued to do since my imprisonment on January 18 of 2001.
The web-sites of past were set up by Janet & Jamie, and carried on by Ruth and Themmis of Toronto. I had very limited input into past sites, and was not always aware of just what was on them. But I did know there were a lot of people out there trying to lessen the abuses the authorities felt we need to endure.
I am well aware of the effort that has been put towards having the reporters describe Tracy in terms of pain she was enduring, instead of the fact that she was severely disabled, but just as the judges that came upon our situation with their own impressions of our problems, and the learned Prosecutor Randy Kirkham (who's probably a judge by now) having declared that anything less than a very severe penalty to me would be nothing less than a declaration of "open season on the disabled", the highest court in the land felt that it had to give me a life sentence.
If followed to the letter of the law, and that is how I have been made to understand the way things work, it could be understood from reading the Supreme Court's January 18/2001 decision that they are advocating that Tracy should have been given a lethal dosage of some unnamed "more effective pain medication" featured on lines 73, 325 and 661, or a "better pain medication that was "available" featured on lines 128 and 652 of the January 18/2001 decision and on pages 146, 148, 152 and 160 respectively. It would not be an unfounded conclusion when taken in conjunction with Dr. Dzus' description of Tracy's problems on lines 672 page 136 of her testimony she gave at the first trial of me in 1994.
I really believe the January 18/2001 supreme Court decision has been very well paid for, and I believe the Canadian taxpayers should have as clear an understanding as possible of what the authorities feel they need in situations such as we found ourselves in.
We have always been very grateful to the many thinking people that have so clearly shown their objections to the Courts decisions in so many ways. It is really unfortunate for the country that these people have been so craftily excluded from our judicial process anchored in it's shady moral swamp.
Thank you all for your support.
Bob
====
Webmaster's Note: Any references to page numbers on any of the pages on this site are referring to the corresponding page number in the book of documents, court transcripts, testimonies, letters, etc that Robert has compiled concerning his case.
