ANTIDEPRESSANT: SURGEON JUMPS TO HIS DEATH AFTER PUTTING WIFE’S NAME & NUMBER IN HIS POCKET

HIS WIFE IS CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR ABC NEWS

OFTEN REPORTING ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA

Surgeon suicide & ABC Medical Correspondent

Dr. Robert Ashton and his wife, Dr. Jennifer Ashton, in 2009

It is said the he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Likewise he who lives by prescription drugs,

often dies by prescription drugs.

How often have I said that the largest single group I have who are in trouble on antidepressants are doctors and nurses or their family members? Of course the original article below does state that he was suffering from depression. What it does not go on to say is that he was being MEDICATED for depression. You can see that in his eyes if you know what you are looking for. If you are not aware of what is known as “Prozac Eyes” that is exactly what you see when you look into this doctor’s eyes.

Dr. Robert Ashton jumped from the George Washington Bridge in New York at 8:40 AM on Saturday morning just two weeks after divorcing his wife Dr. Jennifer Ashton, Chief Medical Correspondent at ABC. Before jumping he did put a note in his pocket to call his ex-wife and mother of their children. From what his wife posted encouraging others to get help if they need it she is apparently completely unaware that these drugs produce suicide, especially when the dose has recently been changed abruptly either up or down – something that is very common when going through a stressful period such as a divorce.

The picture above was taken in 2009 so he had been on medications for some time. What needs to be asked is if he was still on them, had recently been switched to another antidepressant, increased or decreased, or was attempting withdrawal from one – all of which can trigger the REM Sleep Disorder. Because of the early morning hour the REM Sleep Disorder would be my first suspicion in this case as a trigger for the impulsive suicide. In considering the extremely high rate of accumulation of these drugs in brain tissue (a rate 100 times greater in the brain than what is found in the blood – Dr. Craig Karson), whether Dr. Ashton was on the antidepressant currently or not would be of little importance since the drugs would still be in the brain affecting his behavior.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/13/surgeon-who-jumped-to-his-death-left-note-to-call-his-wife/

DREAM OR REALITY? REM SLEEP DISORDER

ANTIDEPRESSANTS PRODUCE A DEADLY

SLEEP DISORDER KNOWN TO INCLUDE

BOTH MURDER AND SUICIDE

What the world remains unaware of is the fact is that 86% of those who are diagnosed with the most deadly sleep disorder known as REM Sleep Disorder (RBD) are currently taking antidepressants. REM Sleep Disorder is a condition in which there is no paralysis during sleep thus allowing the patient to act out the dreams or nightmares they are having. Tragically 80% of those going into this sleep disorder hurt themselves or others including both murder and suicide as a result.

This is possibly the most deadly of all reactions one can have to antidepressants. Even more frightening though is to learn that before the introduction of the SSRI antidepressants RBD was known mainly as a drug withdrawal effect. Thus the chances of going into this dangerous reaction should be expected to increase as one goes into withdrawal. This is why it is so important to avoid as much of the withdrawal effects as possible by tapering off the antidepressant very, very, VERY SLOWLY.

Feel free to join us on Facebook to learn more about this disorder on our Antidepressant-induced REM Sleep Disorder group ….                                                                                                                                                                    https://www.facebook.com/groups/106704639660883/

 

DIVORCE IS ALSO A COMMON ANTIDEPRESSANT REACTION

Because these drugs are designed to numb feelings of depression, patients find that they numb most feelings, happy as well as sad. As the patient begins to no longer feel feelings of love for their mate they often begin to think they have fallen out of love for them and will file for divorce. Besides that increasing serotonin has long been known to produce argumentative behavior. And then there are the deadly manic effects of these drugs which can produce much out of character behavior that is not conducive to a happy marriage. To learn more about that aspect of antidepressants feel free to join us in another of our Facebook groups: Antidepressant-Induced Divorce Epidemic ….https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=antidepressant-induced%20divorce%20epidemic

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,

International Coalition for Drug Awareness

DrugAwareness.org & SSRIstories.NET

Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

WITHDRAWAL WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

WITHDRAWAL HELP: You can find the hour and a half long CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here:http://store.drugawareness.org/ And if you need additional consultations with Ann Blake-Tracy, you can book one atwww.drugawareness.org or sign up for one of the memberships in the International Coalition for Drug Awareness which includes free consultations as one of the benefits of that particular membership plan. For only a $30 membership for one month you can even get 30 days of access to the withdrawal CD with tips on rebuilding after the meds, all six of my DVDs, hundreds of radio interviews, lectures, TV interviews I have done over the years PLUS access to my book on antidepressants (500 plus pages) with more information than you will find anywhere else (that is only $5 more than the book alone would cost) atwww.drugawareness.org. (Definitely the best option to save outrageous postage charges for those out of the country!)

 

 

3,422 total views, 23 views today

MEDICATION: Finally The Answers in 4 Year Old Ethan Stacy’s Murder

Nathan Sloop

Nathan Sloop

Nathan Sloop, step-father to Ethan Stacy, 4, (below) pleaded guilty but mentally ill Tuesday to aggravated murder in the boy’s death. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors will not seek the death penalty against him.

Little Ethan

Ethan Stacy, 4

Ethan Stacy, 4, died in May of 2010, just days after he arrived in Utah to visit his mother for the summer. Within only a few days, prosecutors believe the boy was severely abused, scalded, beaten, over medicated and was not given the medical care that he needed. When found his body had been disfigured with a hammer and the shallow grave it was in had been sprinkled with dog food. The boy had been burned over 17 percent of his body.

Almost four years later the answer I have suspected since Ethan’s death in May of 2008 has come out in court today. His step-father was on a number of prescribed medications for “mental illness” and even was prescribed as much as 4000 pain pills in a nine month period. Today he pleaded guilty, but mentally ill. As I have said before the answers may not come quickly, but if you hang on eventually they surface.

Nathan Sloop was once an All-American academic Lacrosse player whose mental illness “sent him off the tracks” according to his attorney. I would propose that it was not mental illness that sent him off the tracks, but the drugs he was given that produced the mental illness and additionally sent him off the tracks. His attorney went on to say , “The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was impaired as a result of a medical condition,” and added that he felt his client’s illness was “mistreated.” And whenever you hear that mentioned that is translated as “my client was not suffering depression, but instead was undiagnosed Bipolar and antidepressants should not have been given to someone who has tendencies for Bipolar.” The attorneys use that as a defense because that is what the doctors, who caused this nightmare for this family in the first place, have used to explain why these things are the fault of the patient, and certainly NOT the wonderful medications they have prescribed for the patient!

Ethan’s mother Stephanie Sloop is also charged with the murder and will be in court next week. Nathan and Stephanie Sloop got married on May 6, but left Ethan at home alone because they didn’t want anyone to notice his bruises and swelling. Ethan died two days later.

Nathan Sloop faced additional charges in an unrelated case in December after he attacked a deputy at the Davis County Jail. In the Nov. 21 incident, Sloop punched the officer while trying to gouge his eyes out and biting his thumb.

Please note that we have long seen cases of the gouging out of eyes and more especially biting associated with the use of antidepressants. See our database of cases for similar antidepressant cases at www.ssristories.drugawareness.org

To understand the science behind how antidepressants produce such violence please read my 2004 presentation on antidepressants to the FDA Advisory Committee: http://www.drugawareness.org/fda-testimony/dr-ann-blake-tracys-september-13-2004-to-the-fda

Original Articles: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595638/Nathan-Sloop-pleads-guilty-but-mentally-ill-to-brutal-death-of-4-year-old-stepson.html?pg=all

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=28605924&nid=148&title=nathan-sloop-admits-to-death-of-stepson

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

WITHDRAWAL WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

The FDA also now warns that any abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant can produce suicide, hostility or psychosis. These reactions can either come on very rapidly or even be delayed for months depending upon the adverse effects upon sleep patterns when the withdrawal is rapid! You can find the hour and a half long CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here: http://store.drugawareness.org/

For All Who Have Lost Loved Ones to Prescription Drugs

IBelieve

DIAMOND RIO – I BELIEVE

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qb5HmyHTaA

Karol Truman, author of the excellent book “Feelings Buried Alive Never Die,” which I recommend in my book on the dangers of antidepressants is a dear friend of mine. Last week Karol sent me her son Dan’s latest release and asked me to share it with others. Dan is in the popular Country Western group, Diamond Rio.

And as I was playing Dan’s latest song, “Oh My Father,” which you will find at the bottom of this page, I noticed a Diamond Rio song posted near it, called “I BELIEVE.” After just reading the statement about 17 year old Claire Davis passing away a week after being shot in the latest school shooting at Arapahoe High School, just eight miles from Columbine, watching the video brought me to tears. Here is that quote: “Shannon Wilhelm cried and held her son tightly in her arms. ‘Being a parent, the fact that you have to lose your child around the holidays or any time, it’s just not something you want anyone to go through,’ she said.”

So….for all of you parents missing a child this Christmas, husbands missing a wife, wives missing a husband, children missing a parent, friend’s missing a friend or relative, etc. I dedicate this song to you with the hope that through its message you will find hope in the gift brought to us all from the Christ Child born on this day so long ago whose Father also lost His Son in order for us all to be together again. I too believe.

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: “Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

Diamond Rio – “I BELIEVE”

Lyrics from “I Believe”

Every now and then
Soft as breath upon my skin
I feel you, come back again
And it’s like, you haven’t been

Gone a moment from my side
Like the tears were never cried
Like the hands of time
Were pulling you, and me

And with all my heart, I’m sure
We’re closer than we ever were
I don’t have to hear or see
I’ve got all the proof I need

There are more than angels watching
Over me.. I believe.. ohh, I believe.

Now when you die, your life goes on
It doesn’t end here, when you’re gone
Every soul is filled with light
It never ends, if I’m right

Our love can even reach, across-
Eternity.. I believe.. ohh, I believe.

Forever, you’re a part of me
Forever, in the heart of me
I will hold you even longer
If I can…

Oh, the people who don’t see the most
See that I, believe in ghosts
If that makes me crazy, then I am
Cuz I believe.. ohh, I believe..

There are more than angels watching
Over me.. I believe.. ohh, I believe.

Every now and then
Soft as breath upon my skin
I feel you, come back again..
And I believe…

****

Dan Truman’s Latest Release

“O My Father” – Dan & Chad Truman featuring Alex Boye’

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qPKc6_x2k

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,

International Coalition for Drug Awareness

www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

HARVARD EXPERTS: The Myth of Safe & Effective Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted

FDA logo with pills

HARVARD EXPERTS: THE MYTH OF SAFE & EFFECTIVE DRUGS: WHY THE FDA CANNOT BE TRUSTED

In an article soon to be published in a special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME) and coming from Harvard experts is an eye opener for those who blindly follow FDA guidelines thinking that will protect them and their loved ones from the harm that can come from prescription medications.

The article first alerting us to this new research comes from the Harvard Ethics blog of one of the three authors of the paper and is titled “Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted” by Donald W. Light. He begins this article with some important points about this 35 page paper:

“A forthcoming article … presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.

“The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.”

Original article:http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs

Let me point out here that I believe that figure for deaths to be skewed because on our site at www.drugawareness.org we quote a 1995 study done by pharmacists alarmed by the high number of deaths due to prescription medications. They found that prescription drugs are the third, not forth, leading cause of death in America and that there are 200,000 deaths per year as a result as opposed to the later figure of only half that amount which figure they are using here.

Either way you count you can see how closely the death toll comes to the death toll at 9/11. Let me remind you that for only one week’s worth of deaths we are continuing to suffer every week since then as a result of prescription medications we went to war for a decade after 9/11! We need to demand our government take this information and do something about this tragic loss in our country! As you read more from this new article you will see how much they are playing a part in this problem though.

You can learn much from the title of the article about to be published “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs.” The authors of the paper are:

Donald W. Light
Rowan University, School of Osteopathic Medicine; Harvard University – Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Joel Lexchin
York University

Jonathan J. Darrow
Harvard Law School

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2013, Forthcoming

And the abstract will give you insight into what you will find:

“Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D [Research and Development] on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.”

The paper in its entirety can be found here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282014

I believe it is quite clear that the reason 90% of new drugs out there are no more effective than those older drugs already on the market is that the pharmaceutical companies are continuously redesigning these drugs so that they can obtain new patents on them. Of course that is done in order to bring in more income because you can charge far more for patented drugs than you can unpatented drugs.

When you combine this information about 90% of drugs on the market being no more effective than older meds with the information we have posted on our site from Dr. John Ioannidis, who is the world’s leading expert on medical research, stating that 90% of medical research is basically bogus, it makes you question why anyone would want to risk using prescription medications at all!!

After reading the interview from the Atlantic Monthly article titled “Lies, Damn Lies, and Medical Science” with Dr. Ioannidis you have to ask yourself if you would not take your car to be fixed by a mechanic who is relying on information about the car that is 90% incorrect, why would you take your body or the body of your loved ones to a doctor who is relying on information that is 90% incorrect? At this point it would appear to me that the risk is far too great! But I leave you all this information to study and then to answer that question for yourself.

Here is the link to the interview with Dr. Ioannidis: http://www.drugawareness.org/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/

WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

The FDA also now warns that any abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant can produce suicide, hostility or psychosis. And these reactions can either come on very rapidly or even be delayed for months depending upon the adverse effects upon sleep patterns when the withdrawal is rapid! You can find the CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here: http://store.drugawareness.org/

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

Chemical Warfare in Syria? Or the United States?

chemical warfare

Chemical Warfare in Syria? Or the United States?

Thanks to our New Zealand director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness (www.drugawareness.org) and Paul Pezzack from the UK for taking my message about chemical warfare and putting it into a media format that is clear as a bell!!!!!! This is exactly the question I was asking a couple of days ago on our Facebook page about our president being upset enough about the possibility of chemical warfare being used by the government in Syria against their own people!

The question should be “Does it take one to know one?!”

I will be sending out a new study from Harvard in the next day or two that clearly states the data involved in the chemical warfare the US government has unleashed upon the American public via the FDA. This study along with another study by pharmacists, point out that we are losing between 2,300 and 3,300 lives every week in this country to “properly prescribed prescription drugs.” That is a total of between 100,000 to 200,000 deaths per year as a direct result of prescription drugs being used as directed, not abused.

The researchers are also quick to point out that deaths from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would significantly  increase this total. And I would add the death toll from birth defects, and murders and suicides as a result of these drugs would also drastically increase those numbers. Then when you add the deaths and damage from the chemicals allowed in our food supply (farm animals consume more drugs than any other living beings on the planet which are then consumed by an unsuspecting public) and via GMO foods where the one consuming the GMO foods is ingesting the pesticide injected into the seed before planting.

A death toll in those numbers outdoes just about any war I am aware of in our recent past!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=491261724298347&set=gm.1413008715579153&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: “Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

School Shooting Is Another Opening to Talk About Guns

After working as an expert in school shootings for the past two decades I have to disagree with the idea that school shootings are a gun problem or a bully problem. The world should have been able to see that after Josh Powell set his home on fire with him & his two children inside. There are many ways to kill if you are determined to do so.

There are prescription drugs on the market that produce both homicidal & suicidal ideation – which means the drugs produce ruminating thoughts of killing others or themselves coupled with ruminating thoughts of various methods of killing. Those medications are marketed as antidepressants.

The following is a link to a statement by Michael Moore after doing to movie Bowling for Columbine where they focused on the guns. You will see he has changed his mind about the guns & now knows it was the antidepressants that caused Columbine:

http://www.drugawareness.org/articles/michael-moore-cause-of-columbine

parenting.blogs.nytimes.com

The shootings in a high school cafeteria in Charden, Ohio, give parents yet another opportunity to talk with our children and neighbors about gun violence.

Xanax Facts and Whitney Houston

 Whitney-Houston-Drugs
I have to agree with Dr. Peter Breggin on this article & would encourage you to read it & educate yourself about this drug.

But what I would add that was not addressed here is how often Xanax is prescribed in antidepressant withdrawal thereby causing Xanax to take responsibility for what the antidepressant withdrawal actually caused or exacerbated the effects. If that is a possibility in Whitney Houston’s case we do not know because that information has not been shared & is rarely addressed or considered.

Another important issue not addressed here is that Ambien is in this same group of drugs & most are aware of the very serious problems with this Benzo.

Also when Xanax was introduced to the market ~ supposedly to replace its extremely addictive sister drug, Valium ~ it is amazing to see it made it to approval when you consider that 1/3 of those in the clinical trials for Xanax could not withdraw from this drug due to its extremely addictive properties!!!

www.huffingtonpost.com

Reports that Xanax and other benzos are not usually lethal when taken alone are vastly misleading. Xanax is rarely taken alone. Why? Because as much or more than any other prescribed drug, Xanax causes medication spellbinding.

FDA Appoved Drug

VERY FITTING WARNING!!! And it makes perfect sense because FDA approved drugs – given as the FDA has determined is a safe & effective manner to take the drugs – is the #3 leading cause of death in America! As the THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH properly prescribed prescription drugs have earned such a dire warning!!!!!!

PROZAC: Murder: Involuntary Intoxication Plea: Tennessee

Paragraph 14 reads:  “The Petitioner had available as a
defense at trial and also as a competency issue the fact that he was
[intoxicated] from the ingestion of . . .[the] medically prescribed drugs[,
Moban and Prozac].
The Petitioner contends that this intoxication
constitutes a valid defense that was overlooked by defense counsel. The
prescribed medications were taken pursuant to medical advice and without [the
Petitioner’s] knowledge of [their] potentially intoxicating effects. . . .
Petitioner contends that due to the ingestion of the aforementioned prescription
drugs he was unexpectedly intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness, incapable
of controlling his actions, and thus not criminally responsible for his actions.
Because the Petitioner was unaware of the potential for his medications to
produce abnormal thought processes and behavior, and because [they were]
medically prescribed to him, the petitioner’s condition qualified as involuntary
intoxication. See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(c). As a result of the aforementioned
prescribed medication-induced physical disorder of the brain, the Petitioner was
(1) unable to exercise his customary moral judgment, (2) unable to control his
violent impulses, (3) unable to appreciate the consequences of his violent
actions, and (4) unable to appreciate right and wrong in regard to what he was
doing at the time of the
homicide.”

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intnco20100412326

SILER v. STATE

JEFFERY T. SILER, JR.,
v.
STATE
OF TENNESSEE.

No. E2009-00436-CCA-R3-PC.

Court of Criminal Appeals
of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

Assigned on Briefs August 26,
2009.

Filed April 12, 2010.

Jeffery T. Siler, Pro Se, Only,

Tennessee.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; and
Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of
Tennessee.

Camille R. McMullen, J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Joseph M. Tipton, P.J., and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J.,
joined.

OPINION

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE.

The
Petitioner, Jeffery T. Siler, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s
summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. On
appeal, the Petitioner contends that due process considerations toll the
one-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief and entitle him to a
delayed appeal. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction
court.

Prior to trial, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of
attempted especially aggravated robbery and received a sentence of eight years.
See State v. Jeffery T. Siler, No. E2000-01570-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL
387088, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Apr. 17, 2001). A Knox County
jury subsequently found the Petitioner guilty of the felony murder charge.

See id. He received a life sentence that was to be served
concurrently to his eight-year sentence for the attempted especially aggravated
robbery conviction. See id. The Petitioner’s convictions were
affirmed on direct appeal, and the Petitioner did not file an application for
permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id.

On February
13, 2009, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming,
among other things, that: (1) his conviction was based on a coerced confession;
(2) his conviction was based on a violation of the privilege of
self-incrimination; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial;
(4) he had newly discovered evidence; (5) his attorney failed to appeal to the

Tennessee Supreme Court after his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal;
(6) his attorney failed to withdraw following the direct appeal; (7) he had a
right to a delayed appeal because his attorney failed to appeal his case to the
Tennessee Supreme Court after his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and
because his attorney failed to withdraw after the direct appeal; (8) he received
ineffective assistance of counsel at his transfer hearing; (9) his attorney was
ineffective for failing to argue he was incompetent because of involuntary
intoxication from prescribed medicatons and for failing to assert the defense of
involuntary intoxication; (10) his attorney was ineffective for failing to
investigate his psychiatric history and for failing to include this history in a
motion to suppress his pretrial statements; (11) his attorney was ineffective
for failing to hire an expert to support the defense of involuntary intoxication

from prescribed medications which established his actual innocence; (12) his
attorney was ineffective for failing to argue the Petitioner was insane at the
time of the homicide and for failing to hire an expert to support the defense of
insanity; (13) the grand jury that returned the indictment against him was
unconstitutionally selected because it did not reflect a cross-section of the
community and his attorney was ineffective for failing to raise this issue; (14)
the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by making inflammatory comments
about the Petitioner, the evidence, and the crime, and by implying that the
Petitioner would commit other crimes if the jury did not convict him; and (15)
the trial court erred by allowing “irrelevant, inadmissible, and false evidence”
to be presented to the jury, by failing to charge the jury on all applicable
defenses, and by failing to charge the jury on all lesser-included offenses. On
February 20, 2009, the post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as
untimely. The post-conviction court’s order did not address whether due process
required tolling of the statute of limitations period. On March 2, 2009, the
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.

In the opinion on direct appeal,
this court provided a summary of the underlying facts in this case:

On February 19, 1998, the fifteen-year-old defendant and fifteen-year-old
Lavon Davis were riding with Jason Copley. Davis stated that he was “looking
for a lick,” meaning someone to rob. Upon seeing fifty-six-year-old Tommy
Haworth, the victim, walking down the street, they decided to rob him. The
defendant agreed to take Davis’ pistol, and Davis and the defendant exited the
vehicle and followed the victim to his residence. There, the defendant
confronted the victim and asked him for money. The victim replied that he had
none. The defendant then cocked the pistol, and it fired. The victim was hit
in the face with the bullet and died as a result of this gunshot wound.
The defendant and Davis fled the scene, and the defendant threw the empty
shell casing into a storm drain. Copley, who had remained in the vehicle,
stayed at the scene and told someone to call 911.
The defendant and Davis were subsequently arrested, and the defendant
confessed his involvement in the offense. In his statement the defendant
contended the gun went off accidentally during the attempted robbery, and he
did not intend to shoot the victim. An analysis of the shell casing found in
the storm drain and the projectile recovered in the victim’s toboggan revealed
they were fired from the pistol recovered from Davis’ coat pocket. The
defendant’s fingerprints were also found on the door of the victim’s
residence.
The defendant was transferred from juvenile court to the Criminal Court
for Knox County and indicted in Count 1 for first degree murder during the
perpetration of an attempted especially aggravated robbery and in Count 2 for
attempted especially aggravated robbery. On the morning of trial, the
defendant entered a guilty plea to attempted especially aggravated robbery,
and the case was tried before a jury on the felony murder charge. The jury
found the defendant guilty of felony murder. The defendant was sentenced to
concurrent sentences of life for felony murder and eight years for attempted
especially aggravated robbery.

Id. at *1 (internal footnote
omitted).

On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court
erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. He also
contends that due process considerations should toll the post-conviction statute
in light of his counsel’s failure to appeal his case to the Tennessee Supreme
Court after his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, his counsel’s
failure to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 14, and
his counsel’s failure to argue that he was incompetent because of involuntary

intoxication and failure to assert the defense of involuntary intoxication at
trial. As explanation for his untimely filing, the Petitioner claims in his
appellate brief that his “multiple mental health diagnoses” including “mental
retardation” prevented him from determining how much time it would take for the
Tennessee Supreme Court to grant or deny counsel’s promised application for
permission to appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 11. Finally, the Petitioner argues
that he should be given a delayed appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court because
of these due process violations. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 9(D)(1)(b). In
response, the State argues that the Petitioner’s claims do not qualify as
exceptions to the statute of limitations, that the post-conviction court
properly dismissed his petition as untimely, and that he is not entitled to a
delayed appeal based on due process concerns.

Regarding counsel’s failure
to appeal his case following the direct appeal, the Petitioner cites to
counsel’s April 19, 2001 letter to him, wherein counsel stated:

Your appeal was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals. I shall ask for
permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, unless you instruct me
otherwise within the next ten (10) days. A copy of the Court’s opinion is
enclosed.
If I do not hear from you within the next ten (10) days, I shall prepare a
Request for Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. While I do
not think permission to appeal will be granted, I believe it is obviously in
your best interest for me to ask on your behalf. Thank you for the opportunity
to represent you in this matter.

The Petitioner also cites to
counsel’s November 4, 2008 letter to the Board of Professional Responsibility,
wherein counsel stated: “The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Siler’s
appeal, and he did not contact me within thirty (30) days, orally or in writing,
to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Regarding counsel’s failure to withdraw
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 14, the Petitioner cites to the
response he received from Becky Doyal, the Deputy Clerk of the Courts of the
State of Tennessee, wherein she stated:

Your question: “Did [counsel] file a motion to withdraw on your behalf[.”]
If you are asking if [counsel] filed a motion to withdraw as your attorney,
the answer is no. If you are asking[] if [counsel] filed a motion to withdraw
the appeal, the answer is no.

The Petitioner included copies of
counsel’s April 19, 2001 letter, counsel’s November 4, 2008 letter to the Board
of Professional Responsibility, and the response from the Deputy Clerk of the
Courts of the State of Tennessee as exhibits to his petition for post-conviction
relief.

Finally, regarding counsel’s failure to assert competency or
defense arguments based on involuntary intoxication, the Petitioner argues:

The Petitioner had available as a defense at trial and also as a
competency issue the fact that he was [intoxicated] from the ingestion of . .
.[the] medically prescribed drugs[, Moban and Prozac]. The Petitioner contends
that this intoxication constitutes a valid defense that was overlooked by
defense counsel. The prescribed medications were taken pursuant to medical
advice and without [the Petitioner’s] knowledge of [their] potentially
intoxicating effects. . . . Petitioner contends that due to the ingestion of
the aforementioned prescription drugs he was unexpectedly intoxicated to the
point of unconsciousness, incapable of controlling his actions, and thus not
criminally responsible for his actions. Because the Petitioner was unaware of
the potential for his medications to produce abnormal thought processes and
behavior, and because [they were] medically prescribed to him, the
petitioner’s condition qualified as involuntary intoxication. See T.C.A. §
39-11-503(c). As a result of the aforementioned prescribed medication-induced
physical disorder of the brain, the Petitioner was (1) unable to exercise his
customary moral judgment, (2) unable to control his violent impulses, (3)
unable to appreciate the consequences of his violent actions, and (4) unable
to appreciate right and wrong in regard to what he was doing at the time of
the homicide.

“[A] person in custody under a sentence of a
court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one (1) year
of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an
appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one (1) year of the date on
which the judgment became final. . .” T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a) (2006). The statute
explicitly states, “The statute of limitations shall not be tolled for any
reason, including any tolling or saving provision otherwise available at law or
equity.” Id. It further stresses that “[t]ime is of the essence of the right to
file a petition for post-conviction relief or motion to reopen established by
this chapter, and the one-year limitations period is an element of the right to
file the action and is a condition upon its exercise.” Id. In the event that a
petitioner files a petition for post-conviction relief outside the one-year
statute of limitations, the trial court is required to summarily dismiss the
petition. See id. § 40-30-106(b) (2006). Similarly, “[i]f, on reviewing the
petition, the response, files, and records, the court determines conclusively
that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall dismiss the
petition.” Id. § 40-30-109(a) (2006). Furthermore, “[i]f and when a petition is
competently drafted and all pleadings, files and records of the case
conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief the court may
properly dismiss the petition without the appointment of counsel or conducting a
hearing.” Martucci v. State, 872 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (citing
T.C.A. § 40-30-109; Stokely v. State, 470 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1971)).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(b) (2006) sets out
three exceptions to the statute of limitations for petitions for post-conviction
relief:

No court shall have jurisdiction to consider a petition filed after the
expiration of the limitations period unless:
(1) The claim in the petition is based upon a final ruling of an appellate
court establishing a constitutional right that was not recognized as existing
at the time of trial, if retrospective application of that right is required.
The petition must be filed within one (1) year of the ruling of the highest
state appellate court or the United States supreme court establishing a
constitutional right that was not recognized as existing at the time of trial;

(2) The claim in the petition is based upon new scientific evidence
establishing that the petitioner is actually innocent of the offense or
offenses for which the petitioner was convicted; or
(3) The claim asserted in the petition seeks relief from a sentence that
was enhanced because of a previous conviction and the conviction in the case
in which the claim is asserted was not a guilty plea with an agreed sentence,
and the previous conviction has subsequently been held to be invalid, in which
case the petition must be filed within one (1) year of the finality of the
ruling holding the previous conviction to be
invalid.

Additionally, due process concerns may toll the
statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. The Tennessee Supreme Court
concluded:

[B]efore a state may terminate a claim for failure to comply with
procedural requirements such as statutes of limitations, due process requires
that potential litigants be provided an opportunity for the presentation of
claims at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Burford
v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.,
455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 1158-59 (1982)).

Here, the Petitioner
was required to file his petition for post-conviction relief within one year of
April 17, 2001, the date that the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed
his convictions on direct appeal, which was the final action of the highest
state appellate court to which an appeal was taken in his case. See T.C.A. §
40-30-102(a) (2006). The Petitioner does not list any ground that would make him
eligible for the exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations. See id. §
40-30-102(b) (2006). However, regarding counsel’s failure to appeal to the

Tennessee Supreme Court after his direct appeal and counsel’s failure to
withdraw as counsel, he relies on Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 468 (Tenn.
2001), for the proposition that due process considerations should toll the
one-year statute of limitations for filing his petition for post-conviction
relief. In Williams, the Tennessee Supreme Court stressed that in limited
circumstances an attorney’s misrepresentation to a petitioner could result in a
tolling of the statute of limitations for due process concerns:

[W]e are not holding that a petitioner may be excused from filing an
untimely post-conviction petition as a result of counsel’s negligence.
Instead, the focus here is . . . upon trial and appellate counsel’s alleged
misrepresentation in failing to . . . notify the petitioner that no
application for permission to appeal would be filed in [the Tennessee Supreme]
Court.

Williams, 44 S.W.3d. at 468 n.7. In Craig Robert Nunn,
this court agreed that “[t]he Williams decision is not intended to require a
hearing on due process concerns every time a petitioner alleges that the
untimeliness of his petition is due to his trial or appellate counsel’s
negligence.” Craig Robert Nunn v. State, No. M2005-01404-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL
680900, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 17, 2006) (citing Bronzo
Gosnell, Jr. v. State, No. E2004-02654-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 1996629, at *4 (Tenn.

Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 19, 2005), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Dec. 19,
2005)). However, this court explained that the facts in the Williams case
necessitated an evidentiary hearing:

In Williams, the inmate/petitioner averred that he believed trial counsel
was continuing to represent him through the appeals process. The court
remanded for an evidentiary hearing on grounds that the inmate/petitioner
might “have been denied the opportunity to challenge his conviction in a
timely manner through no fault of his own but because of the possible
misrepresentation of counsel.”

Barry N. Waddell v. State, No.
M2001-00096-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1246393, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct.
17, 2001) (quoting Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 468) (emphasis added)), perm. to
appeal denied (Tenn. Apr. 8, 2002). Ultimately, the court in Williams remanded
the appellee’s case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine:

(1) whether due process tolled the statute of limitations so as to give
the appellee a reasonable opportunity after the expiration of the limitations
period to present his claim in a meaningful time and manner; and (2) if so,
whether the appellee’s filing of the post-conviction petition . . . was within
the reasonable opportunity afforded by the due process tolling. Williams, 44
S.W.3d. at 471. The Williams court then held that if the trial court
determined that the statute of limitations should be tolled and that the
appellee had filed his petition for post-conviction relief within the
“reasonable opportunity afforded by the due process tolling” then the trial
court would have “jurisdiction to determine whether Williams was deprived of
his right to request pro se Supreme Court review under Rule 11 of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Id. at 472 (citing Tenn. Sup. Ct. R.
28, § 9(D)).

Although the Petitioner does not specifically cite
State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001), we think this case is also
particularly relevant, given the Petitioner’s claim in his appellate brief that
his mental conditions prevented him from determining how much time it would take
for the Tennessee Supreme Court to grant or deny counsel’s promised application
for permission to appeal. Prior to Nix, the Tennessee Supreme Court, following
the holding in Watkins v. State, 903 S.W.2d 302, 307 (Tenn. 1995), concluded
that “mental incompetency, if established, tolled the statute of limitations.”
Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d, 272, 279 (Tenn. 2000). The court further held that
the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief should not deny a
Petitioner the right to raise a claim in a meaningful time and manner:

[W]e conclude that while the one-year statute of limitations set forth in
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a) does not violate due process on its face,
application of the statute must not deny a petitioner a reasonable opportunity
to raise a claim in a meaningful time and manner. Thus, a petitioner who is
mentally incompetent is denied an opportunity to raise a claim in a meaningful
manner unless the statute of limitations is tolled during the period of mental
incompetence.

Id. Less than a year later, the Tennessee Supreme
Court held that the Watkins and Seals cases did not specify the standard of
mental incompetence that a petitioner must satisfy in order for due process
concerns to toll the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Nix, 40
S.W.3d at 463. Ultimately, the court held:

We emphasize that to make a prima facie showing of incompetence requiring
tolling of the limitations period, a post-conviction petition must include
specific factual allegations that demonstrate the petitioner’s inability to
manage his personal affairs or understand his legal rights and liabilities.
Unsupported, conclusory, or general allegations of mental illness will not be
sufficient to require tolling and prevent summary dismissal under Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-30-206(b) & (f).

Id. at 464-65.

On appeal,
the Petitioner contends that counsel violated his due process rights by failing
to appeal his case to the Tennessee Supreme Court after his convictions were
affirmed on direct appeal, by failing to withdraw as counsel pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 14, and by failing to argue that he was incompetent
because of involuntary intoxication and failing to assert involuntary

intoxication as a defense at trial. We recognize that the petition for
post-conviction relief was not filed until February 13, 2009, nearly seven years
after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. In addition, based
on the record, the Petitioner’s February 13, 2009 petition appears to be the
first time he has argued that due process concerns should toll the one-year
statute of limitations. See Richard A. Emmitt v. State, No.
M2004-00564-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 639133, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar.
16, 2005) (concluding that the trial court’s dismissal was proper where the
Petitioner waited eighteen years after his convictions became final before
filing a petition for post-conviction relief and before requesting a delayed
appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. June 27,
2005). However, as explanation for his lengthy delay in filing his
post-conviction, the Petitioner argues in his appellate brief but not in his
petition for post-conviction relief that his “multiple mental health diagnoses”
including “mental retardation” prevented him from determining how much time it
would take for the Tennessee Supreme Court to grant or deny counsel’s promised
application for permission to appeal. The Petitioner further asserts, on appeal
and in his post-conviction petition, that he lived in a psychiatric institution
nearly his entire childhood and that he was receiving Social Security benefits
for a mental disability and was taking the prescriptions Moban and Prozac for
schizophrenia at the time of the homicide in this case. He attached medical
records documenting his mental conditions from his early childhood to his
petition; however, there are no records showing his condition after
trial.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the
post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting a
hearing to make determinations as outlined in Williams. See Eric Wright v.
State, No. W2001-00386-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1690194, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App., at
Jackson, Dec. 17, 2001). Here, the Petitioner attached a letter from counsel as
proof of counsel’s intent to file for a Rule 11 appeal as well as a letter from
the court clerk as proof of counsel’s failure to properly withdraw from his
case. Before dismissing the petition as untimely, Williams required the trial
court to conduct a hearing to determine if “in fact, [the petitioner] [was]
misled to believe that counsel was continuing the appeals process, thereby
requiring the tolling of the limitations period.” Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 471;
see also Shelvy Baker v. State, 2008 WL 2648957, at 2 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2008)
(concluding that petitioner’s allegations that counsel “(1) failed to notify the
Petitioner that counsel did not intend to file a Rule 11 application for
permission to appeal; (2) failed to formally withdraw as the attorney of record
or otherwise failed to inform the Petitioner of counsel’s withdraw; and (3)
counsel assured `the Petitioner that he would take the case all the way to the
Tennessee Supreme Court'” required a Williams based evidentiary
hearing).

Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the post-conviction
court’s summary dismissal of the petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
On remand, the post-conviction court is required to determine

(1) whether due process tolled the statute of limitations so as to give
the [Petitioner] a reasonable opportunity after the expiration of the
limitations period to present his claim in a meaningful time and manner; and
(2) if so, whether the [Petitioner’s] filing of the post-conviction petition
in [February 2009] was within the reasonable opportunity afforded by the due
process tolling.

Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 471. In addition, on
remand, the trial court should consider the Petitioner’s claims regarding his
mental condition against the standard for mental competency established in State
v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tenn. 2001).

CONCLUSION

We reverse the post-conviction
court’s summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction
relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

ANTIDEPRESSANTS: Man Has Huge Cache of Weapons in his House: MA

Paragraph six reads:  “According to police reports,
Girard was engaging in target practice in a makeshift, illegal shooting range in
the attic of his 23 Bridge St. condo. He also had a six-month supply of food and
prescription drugs, including

anti-depressants.”

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22530569/detail.html

Police: Armed Man Prepared For ‘Armageddon’

Officers Find Tear Gas, Grenades In Massachusetts Home

POSTED: 6:05 am EST February 11, 2010
UPDATED: 1:41 pm EST February
11, 2010

MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA, Mass. —

A Massachusetts man is in jail facing weapons charges after his wife turned him in

to police for having a huge cache of weapons, including rifles, tear gas
grenades and explosives, inside his North Shore condominium.

Gregory
Girard, 45, of Manchester-by-the-Sea was arrested Tuesday, police said, after he
allegedly told officers he was preparing for Armageddon.

He allegedly
told his wife, Kristine Girard, a licensed psychiatrist, that he was convinced
the end of the world was near.

“He’s convinced that martial law is
imminent, and that he made the following statements recently to (his wife):
‘Don’t talk to people. Shoot them instead. It’s fine to shoot people in the
head, because traitors deserve it,” state prosecutor Honor Segal told a judge at
Girard’s arraignment hearing.

Girard was arraigned in Salem District
Court on four counts of possession of an infernal device and four counts of

possession of a dangerous weapon and is now facing a dangerousness hearing on
Friday.

According to police reports, Girard was engaging in target
practice in a makeshift, illegal shooting range in the attic of his 23 Bridge
St. condo. He also had a six-month supply of food and prescription drugs,
including anti-depressants.
e
Police said they found about
20 high-powered rifles, shotguns and handguns, and armor-piercing bullets, in

the Girard’s second-floor condo. The weapons were purchased legally and were
registered, but officers said they also found grenades, which are illegal.

Girard’s weapons licenses were immediately revoked.

He was
described as cooperative when officers arrived to arrest him. Stunned neighbors
in the couple’s high-end condo complex said the Girards were a nice couple.

“I don’t think he was intending to harm anybody … no, I never heard
anything,” a neighbor said.

Girard has no criminal record. He pleaded
not guilty and was ordered held without bail at his arraignment.