PROZAC: Man Engaged in Massive Self-Mutilation: Lawsuit: Illinois

Paragraph five reads: “Gay wants to go back on Busper, though,
as he says Prozac sexually frustrates him and causes his
stomach to hurt. In addition, during the 11 months that Gay took Prozac,
he cut his testicles, arms, thighs and neck, all of which required
sutures,
the complaint says.”

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/226207-plaintiff-wants-psychiatrist-to-prescribe-medicine-to-stop-selfmutilation

Plaintiff wants psychiatrist to prescribe medicine to stop self
mutilation
4/21/2010 12:00 PM By Kelly Holleran

A man claims he has cut numerous parts of his body, including his
testicles, because his former psychiatrist refused to prescribe him the correct
medication.

Anthony Gay filed a lawsuit April 12 in Madison County
Circuit Court against Claudia Kachigian.

Gay claims he self mutilates
himself because of anxiety problems. The only medication that prevents Gay from
cutting himself is Busper, according to the complaint. Gay claims he explained
the scenario to his psychiatrist, Kachigian.

However, Kachigian allegedly
refused to prescribe the medication to Gay because it’s a nonformulary
medication, according to the complaint. Instead, she prescribed him Prozac on
April 26, 2009, the suit states.

Gay wants to go back on Busper, though,
as he says Prozac sexually frustrates him and causes his stomach to hurt. In

addition, during the 11 months that Gay took Prozac, he cut his testicles, arms,
thighs and neck, all of which required sutures, the complaint
says.

Finally, on March 8, Kachigian discontinued Gay’s Prozac and on
March 29, she discontinued his psychiatric services, which has caused Gay
additional emotional distress, he claims.

Gay, who will be representing
himself, wants the court to order an independent psychiatrist to examine his
needs. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Madison County
Circuit Court case number: 10-L-416.

956 total views, no views today

PROZAC: Worsening Depression & Panic Attacks: England

Paragraph twelve reads: “The next day was a Friday and I started taking
the Prozac extremely reluctantly. The side effects listed on the pack
included headaches, dizziness, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, dry
mouth, loss of appetite, anxiety, sleeplessness, nervousness. If I am
anxious now, I thought, how anxious will I be on Prozac? If I wake at four each
morning now, and toss and turn for many of the hours that follow, will I get
any sleep on Prozac?”

Paragraph fourteen reads: “By Monday I could not move. I felt sick, heavy
as a rock, everything ached, and my head swam. I had the pains and sort of
breathlessness associated with heart attacks and I was, of course, crying.
I rang work to say I had some sort of bug and that I hoped to be right the
next day. Speaking was an effort. It was hard convincing myself that the
advantages to leaving the house and seeing the doctor outweighed those of
staying inside where I wanted, desperately, to be, but I knew I needed to
seek advice. Dr Fahey offered, again, to sign me off work; my response, again,
was an adamant no. I was going into work as soon as I could.”

Paragraph 20 reads: “After the second visit to Dr Fahey everything
changed. She made me realise that whatever self-deceptions I had entered into,
the reality was that I had not been into work for several days, nor was I
currently fit to go in. She signed me off for two weeks and gave me
tranquillisers to moderate the increasingly severe panic attacks. She advised me
strongly to leave London. The idea of being on my own without work for two weeks
was unthinkable, unbearable. Amanda was off to visit our parents in the
country and taking the children with her. My brother-in-law Neil was staying
at home an extra night then would join her there. Amanda’s suggestion was
that I drive to be with Neil and then the following day he would drive us
both to Suffolk to be with the whole family.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/18/depression-and-recovery-c
amilla-nicholls

Woman on the verge
She was a media executive at the top of her game. But a debilitating
midlife crisis forced Camilla Nicholls to hit rock bottom. In a searingly honest
account, she details her nervous breakdown – and her tentative steps back
to recovery

It all started slipping away from me in July 2000. Depression had been
part of my life for a long time, but that summer it ceased to be under
control. It was shortly after a married friend’s party that I had the first
significant “What is the point?” conversation.

Every guest had brought with them a child, or a swelling stomach. Hardly a
conversation was had at head height; we were all dipping and bending or
squatting to catch half a sentence with someone too heavy to stand for long.
There was no chance of eating as little hands pawed at the snacks, and
pregnant women, picking through the non-pasteurised, took precedence around the
table. Sentences were left hanging in the air as parents attended to
toddlers’ or babies’ urgent needs.

My friends will bear testimony that I am very fond of children. But I was
bitter because, aged 39, I had no partner, no prospect of a partner and,
more significantly, no prospect of motherhood. Maybe the party felt harder to
cope with that day because my hopes had just taken a severe knock. I had
been told by an unsentimental doctor’s receptionist that I was
peri-menopausal (ie approaching the menopause) and the possibility of my bearing
children was lodged somewhere between zero and infinitesimal.

The “what is the point?” conversation is the one for friends and family to
look out for as a first clue to depression. This is not the “what is the
point?” response of a child to doing homework or cleaning a bedroom; it is,
rather, “what is the point of my being alive?” For depressives the feeling
is often heightened when the reasons for depression are not obvious to
themselves or, more importantly, to others. This leads to the cajoling (or
worse, hectoring) question: “What have you got to be depressed about – you have
a great job/partner/house/body?”

I come from a small, loving, middle-class family. I was not brought up to
follow a particular religion, although as a child my grandmothers took me,
and my only sister Amanda, to Sunday services at the local church in the
Surrey town where we spent all our youth. What my parents did adhere to with
near religious fervour was the observation of good manners. A framework of
politeness in all situations was my firmest mould. Now, grown up,
approaching a milestone of middle age, it was safe to say on paper I had more than
most: a well-paid, challenging job in the media, to which I was virtually
married, a lovely house without an enormous mortgage, often exciting
relationships, great friends and I remained close to my stable family. And yet by
August 2000 my predominant talent was for crying.

I wish when I had first asked “What is the point?” I had been advised to
seek medical help urgently. I was talking to my friend Amy, who was no
stranger to depression herself, so I may have acted had she done so. Instead,
Amy told me a story of finding love herself, unexpectedly, and how it could
happen to me. She may even have taken the phrase “You often find someone
when you are not looking” for another turn. What I do vividly remember is
putting my feet up against the cool marble side of my fireplace, saying “I just
cannot see the point any more”, and crying.

A strong feeling of sadness about my childlessness had persuaded me to
seek the help of a psychotherapist, Judy, in the autumn of 1999 and I had been
visiting her regularly since. Judy, like the majority of therapists, took
the month of August as holiday, leaving me and a whole host of other therapy
regulars in a limbo land of summer anxiety. I looked to herbal drugs – St
John’s wort and others – to boost my spirits and, as ever, I threw myself
into the full responsibilities of my job.

What I was far from realising was that none of these tactics were enough.
Therapy alone cannot conquer a depressive illness, and neither can herbal
drugs. Making work the focus of your life is certainly not the answer. I
felt under-appreciated in my job, believed that my contribution counted for
nothing. I felt my body had let me down, and that I was useless physically as
well as professionally. The feeling was exacerbated when the last person
with whom I had had a physical relationship (and with whom I was still
involved) took up with someone more than 10 years younger. I found out,
painfully, through a third party. This was when my emotional strength started to
give out.

The crying got worse. At work, tears would inconveniently start to fall
down my face in the middle of writing an email or at the point of making a
phone call. In the past many had taken refuge in my office seeking privacy, a
shoulder, advice, a place to scream, and now the adjustable blinds became
an essential masking tool for my own distress. I frequently took time out to
weep in a neighbouring colleague’s office. She began to beg me to seek
help, but because I was in professional mode, I assured her I was really
working hard in therapy and a day didn’t go by without my taking the St John’s
wort. All would be fine.

Finally, I began to realise that taking pride in hiding the fact that I
was on the emotional skids was not a good end in itself. I rang my GP, Dr
Fahey, a plain-speaking, wise Irish woman. I was brave, then sniffled, then
howled, and she said there would be a prescription for me at the surgery that
night for Prozac. She assured me I could ring if I felt I needed to talk
before our appointment in a week’s time, and then she asked if I wanted time
off work. My response was an emphatic no. “I have to keep going into work.
Work is what I do.”

The next day was a Friday and I started taking the Prozac extremely
reluctantly. The side effects listed on the pack included headaches, dizziness,
diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, dry mouth, loss of appetite,
anxiety, sleeplessness, nervousness. If I am anxious now, I thought, how
anxious will I be on Prozac? If I wake at four each morning now, and toss and
turn for many of the hours that follow, will I get any sleep on Prozac?

The first night, I was lucky – friends invited me to stay, friends who
understood. But on Saturday, as I prepared to leave, I began to sink at the
thought of being alone. My friend was pregnant and to make more demands on
her and her partner felt wrong. We stood on her doorstep and she held me
close, hugging me and asking if I would be OK. “Yes,” I lied, then, more
truthfully: “I have to be.” But I cried all weekend.

By Monday I could not move. I felt sick, heavy as a rock, everything
ached, and my head swam. I had the pains and sort of breathlessness associated
with heart attacks and I was, of course, crying. I rang work to say I had
some sort of bug and that I hoped to be right the next day. Speaking was an
effort. It was hard convincing myself that the advantages to leaving the
house and seeing the doctor outweighed those of staying inside where I wanted,
desperately, to be, but I knew I needed to seek advice. Dr Fahey offered,
again, to sign me off work; my response, again, was an adamant no. I was
going into work as soon as I could.

Everyone has different experiences of how they interact with family while
in the grip of a depressive illness: some gain no support, some seek no
support, some have in mind that individual members of their family are largely
or totally responsible for their illness. Despite our lifestyles being
completely different, my sister, Amanda, was the one I could turn to at any
time.

I was struck by an inability to talk to my parents. I simply could not
pick up the phone, or see them. I keenly felt the weight of their love, and
therefore the weight of their disappointment that I was childless,
partnerless. I saw my own confusion and grief reflected back at me. Eventually I
began emailing them messages telling them a little – oh, such a little – of
what I was experiencing. I am sure it was partly a result of the good manners
they themselves had instilled in me that I made this faint but direct
contact. My preferred position was really to remain silent. What child wants to
tell the parents that gave them life that they want it ended?

By the time I returned to Dr Fahey three days later Amanda knew that
something was really wrong. I had told her that I found eating difficult and
that I was afraid to leave the house. I was ringing work each day to say I
still had not improved enough to go in. Mornings are the worst time for
depression and I was piling on the agony by setting myself the unrealistic target
of going to work and then feeling a failure when I was unable to meet it.
Dr Fahey advised that I cancel the regular appointment with Judy, my
therapist, for that week. At first I suspected professional competitiveness
(“I’ll save you” – “No, I’ll save you!”), but she was trying to prevent any
further introspection on my part. I could not see how I was going to get the
few miles across north London that the visit required anyway.

So for three days my sister and Judy coaxed me, by telephone, out of the
house. A 20-yard trip to the newsagent was fine, a trip to M&S was less
successful. I made it to the shop, but halfway round I froze. All that food,
all those people. I loaded up a basket then had to leave it mid-store and
struggle out of the shop to lean against the wall and gasp. I clutched at my
chest, I thought something might rupture.

All this time I kept thinking I would be back at work any minute. That I
had to be back at work. It was essential that people did not know there was
anything wrong. And, really, there was not anything wrong. I was barely
eating, I could barely leave the house, but I was surely fit for work. Surely.

After the second visit to Dr Fahey everything changed. She made me realise
that whatever self-deceptions I had entered into, the reality was that I
had not been into work for several days, nor was I currently fit to go in.
She signed me off for two weeks and gave me tranquillisers to moderate the
increasingly severe panic attacks. She advised me strongly to leave London.
The idea of being on my own without work for two weeks was unthinkable,
unbearable. Amanda was off to visit our parents in the country and taking the
children with her. My brother-in-law Neil was staying at home an extra
night then would join her there. Amanda’s suggestion was that I drive to be
with Neil and then the following day he would drive us both to Suffolk to be
with the whole family.

At their house that evening I crept into my nephew’s room, in his narrow
bunk bed and under his Star Wars duvet. I gasped and sweated through the
night. In the morning, Neil appeared with some tea and suggested we have
breakfast. Fine, I said, yes. Then I realised I might split in two if he left
the room. I gestured that I could do with a hug – and then I started the real
drop to the bottom. It was as if my chest was going to be rent in two.

As Neil pulled gently away I kept up appearances and said I would be down
for breakfast in a minute. I got as far as the bottom of the stairs and
realised I could not breathe, was going to faint, and sat there bleating for
Neil like some injured animal. You need to eat, he asserted. You need some
sugar, something. It had been so long since I had eaten properly my throat
was constricted; my head, heart, lungs felt squeezed. And the panic was
rising: what if I never eat again? What if I have to stay in this state? What
if? What if? I began to hyperventilate. Neil collected me up and calmly set
me on the sofa. He found some dextrose tablets and crammed them into my
mouth, he lifted my feet above my head and he repeated over and over again that
this was the worst, it would get better. But when I could speak I just
begged him tearfully to ring my doctor, to get me to hospital, to put me out
of my misery. To stop everything, to make it stop.

When Neil felt the panic attack had subsided enough he did go to the
phone. He did not ring my doctor, nor the hospital, but Amanda, who got in the
car and came back to be with me. In the following days I frequently asked if
I could be taken to hospital. I wanted, demanded, a lobotomy. I wanted
something to stop the pain, the panic, the screaming, the crying, the
darkness. I wanted some peace.

Amanda and Neil withstood my pleas and I am glad they did. I am not sure I
would have survived hospital. And I could not give up with my niece,
Jessica, and her brother, Alexander, around. “What is actually wrong with you?”
12-year-old Alexander asked repeatedly in the first few days, until my
sister took him to one side and gave him an explanation in her determined and
straightforward way. I was relieved. I did not know how to answer him, I did
not want to scare him and I did not want to lie. But apart from this one
small challenge the children were nothing but help to me. They would appear
in the morning and scramble on or into my bed and tell me what lay ahead
for them that day. And when there is someone so trusting asking you questions
as if your opinion still mattered and telling you stories as if it was
still important to impress you it is hard to plot and plan death, or much
harder anyway.

Amanda brought me breakfast in bed before she left for her teaching job.
Breakfast was a small glass of orange juice placed in the centre of a plate
with toast fingers arranged around the glass to look like a flower or a sun
– something hopeful. I did not feel worthy of such treatment and it would
make me cry. Neil worked from home so I was never alone, and Amanda would
ring me when she got to work, in her break and at lunchtime.

If my illness put a strain on Amanda and Neil’s marriage or their family
life as a whole they did not say. To help the days pass I did my best to
read carefully selected books – nothing with relationships in, nothing about
family love. I met Neil for lunch in the kitchen. I had become, as my mother
was to remark unforgettably, “a vegetable”. Most evenings were spent
inert, watching the family life go on around me. I listened to the children’s
music practice and I made occasional attempts to help with homework. I should
have known that a night of fractions with Jessica was unlikely to be good
for either of us. I had to leave her with her homework book pages rubbed raw
and almost transparent to howl in the bathroom. She clearly felt this was
a topsy-turvy world of role reversal. Wasn’t the child supposed to be in
tears of frustration not the adult?

While the family watched TV I tended to lie behind it as it continued to
induce a state of panic. I tried to hold on to vestiges of my own lifestyle.
Neil recorded The Sopranos for me, but I managed no more than a few
minutes. It did not induce panic, but anguish. Mine was no longer the life of a
sharp, media-savvy woman with sophisticated tastes – after all Amanda had to
gently chivvy me to wash my hair. I found that Alan Titchmarsh and other
toilers on the land and in the kitchen posed no threat. Being so far removed
from my former life made them oddly bearable to view.

Outside scared me. I felt flimsy and exposed. I did not want to be seen or
heard. When Amanda was home I followed her round like a shadow, always
keen to be in the same room, always keen to be held. I ate a little more food
and gained some substance, I had a few more hours’ sleep a night. Armed
with a mobile phone and a huge send off from Neil one day I left the house to
buy a paper. It is several hundred yards to the paper shop from their home,
but it felt like a major adventure, and as I paid for the paper I felt a
surge of spirit, a lightheartedness I had not experienced for some time.

And then my mobile rang. It was one of my friends, and I was able to share
my achievement with her: I had made it to the paper shop on my own. She
was so delighted she asked if I had planted a flag there. It was great. But
the next day I wept over our celebration. How pathetic. I was a 39-year-old
woman, a senior executive at a national newspaper, someone who at the
office made hundreds of decisions a day, a woman with a reputation for being
scary, and the biggest achievement of that week was leaving the house and
handing over loose change to buy the newspaper for which I was still officially
the spokesperson.

When the next visit to Dr Fahey loomed I decided I should venture back to
London a day or so earlier, the logic being that if I could not be on my
own in the house then I should not be going back to work. And going back to
work was my goal, and what I expected my doctor to be helping me to do. It
was a disaster. The appetite which had been coaxed into some sort of life in
the bosom of my sister’s family disappeared. There was no room in the
house that I could settle in. I could not sleep. I used the time to make my
will to plan which friends of mine struggling with infertility I would endow
with financial gifts when I was gone.

Dr Fahey was prepared to give me a very, very limited supply of sleeping
tablets but “not enough to kill yourself with”. I think I smiled at that.
“Do you ever think of killing yourself?” she asked quickly. “I rarely think
of anything else,” was my response. “And how would you feel about seeing a
psychiatrist?” Fine, I said, fine. They would make a home visit. Fine. On
returning home I panicked. Was I going to be sectioned?

I immediately rang my friend Roger who had had a hand in sectioning
someone in the past. His advice was that it takes two to section. If I saw two
through the fish-eye in the door then I should not let them in.

A short time later my doctor rang and told me that there would probably be
two people who would visit me, a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst. Two? I
started to shake. “Will they take me anywhere?” I asked coyly. “I do not
know,” my doctor replied. “Only if they think it is necessary.” As soon as I
put down the receiver there was an incoming call from Siobhain, a lawyer as
well as a friend, who, alerted by Roger, was offering to come and be in
loco parentis to prevent a sectioning. And then Martin, the psychiatrist,
rang. “I will be with you in half an hour.”

Perhaps I could convince them that I was not mad. The lethargy which
almost permanently overwhelmed me was temporarily thrown off as I set about
making my house look sane. I made piles of paper, I cleaned the tea mugs, I
folded the rug under which I spent most time. Then I had an inspiration.
Recycling. If I put some paper in the recycling bin it would look as if I was
investing in the future.

When Martin arrived on the doorstep he appeared to be on his own. I made
tea for us in a scene straight from a badly acted kitchen drama; the spoons
and china clattered as I tried, unsuccessfully, to keep the shaking under
control. We sat in my living room. I questioned him. “Are you really on your
own?” and “Are you going to take me anywhere?” He stated reassuringly that
there was no one waiting outside.

Things got better after that. He gave a name to what I was suffering – a
serious depressive illness – which at its worst was a killer. He identified
a singular problem and spoke it out loud. “So you feel you are incapable of
doing anything, of being good at your job, of holding down a relationship,
of being a mother, and now you cannot even kill yourself, is that right?”
So right, so right, I could not speak. This was a jam I could not see my
way out of – and I was not at all sure that Martin, or any other well meaning
person, could help me out of it either.

It was months into my illness before any of the professionals ventured to
use the term breakdown. It was several more before I learnt that this was
not a cause to feel ashamed.

1,325 total views, no views today

MEDICATIONS: Yet Another So Called “Terrorist” on Meds!

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

Take away these serotonergic medications on both sides of this war and
there would be no war, and likely never would have been a war – except for those
determined to have one for profits only!
From the LA Times report just three months after 9/11 we learned
that the Taliban psychiatrist had posters of antidepressants all over his
office and he was reported as saying that what the Taliban needed was not more
guns, but more Prozac. Of course it follows that if they needed
more, he already had them on antidepressants. He then made this
chilling statement that clearly says anyone he saw would be prescribed
one of these drugs: “Allah has given these drugs great power. Taking them
is like swallowing a little piece of God.”
We now have so many of our US military on these drugs that for several
years now we have lost more soldiers to suicide than we have in combat.
Even those that make it back home are lucky to wake up in the mornings because
so many of them are dying in their sleep from the drug combos they are
being prescribed by the VA.
On top of all that we have those like this fellow being arrested as a
terrorist” because of his reactions to his medications‘ It reminds me of the
young man I attempted to help in Israel several years ago. He was so painfully
shy that his doctor gave him Paxil to treat his Social Anxiety Disorder. His
family read my book and were alarmed and very concerned, but the young man
“seemed to be doing okay” on the drug and they thought that if they just
watched him carefully he would be okay. So they watched carefully, they thought,
until he got up in the middle of the night, blew up an Army jeep, and began
ranting and raving about wanting to be a suicide bomber! (Keep in mind that he
went on this drug because he was shy!) Needless to say no one was more
embarrassed and shocked by his behavior than he was!
_________________________________________
Speaking out in her son’s defense, Nadia Alessa admitted he suffered from
severe anger management issues, but insisted he does not pose a threat to the
country where he was born to Palestinian immigrants.

“Anything makes him
angry,” Nadia Alessa, told CNN of her son. “But he’s not a terrorist; he’s a
stupid kid.”

In interviews with CNN and The New York Times, Alessa said her
son was so full of rage, he began seeing psychiatrists and taking medications to
control his moods at age 6. The boy known for screaming at his mother and
roughing up his father’s car changed schools no less than 10 times, the Times
reported.

Who Are the Alleged New Jersey Jihadists?

Updated: 1 hour 15 minutes ago

Michelle Ruiz

Michelle Ruiz Contributor

AOL
News

(June 13) — The two New
Jersey men arrested at New York’s John F.
Kennedy Airport and charged with conspiring to kill U.S. troops overseas were
troubled, rebellious teens, according to reports. The pair’s brushes with the
law and extreme anti-American sentiments eventually sparked an elaborate
take-down by the FBI.

Mohamed Mahmood Alessa, 20, of North Bergen, N.J.,
and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, 24, of Elmwood Park, N.J., were reportedly nabbed
with help from an undercover rookie New York policeman of Egyptian descent, The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.,
reported
. Alessa’s mother, Nadia Alessa, told CNN she thought the man Alessa
and Almonte called “Bassim” recorded provocative remarks the pair made and built
a case against them.

This undated photo provided by the U.S. Marshals on Wednesday June 9, 2010 shows Mohamed Mahmoud Alessa (left) and Carlos Eduardo Almonte (right).

U.S. Marshals/AP
Family and friends of the alleged New Jersey jihadists,
Mohamed Mahmood Alessa, left, and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, say the pair were
rebellious teens. Alessa and Almonte were arrested June 5 at New York’s JFK
airport, where they planned to fly separately to Somalia by way of Egypt to join
a terrorist organization, the FBI said.

In November 2009, the
officer’s wire captured potentially damning conversations between Alessa and
Almonte.

“A lot of people need to get killed, bro. Swear to God. I have
to get an assault rifle and just kill anyone that even looks at me the wrong
way, bro,” Alessa said, according to transcripts included in the criminal
complaint. “My soul cannot rest until I shed blood. I wanna, like, be the
world’s known terrorist. I swear to God.”

Speaking out in her son’s
defense, Nadia Alessa admitted he suffered from severe anger management issues,
but insisted he does not pose a threat to the country where he was born to
Palestinian immigrants.

“Anything makes him angry,” Nadia Alessa, told
CNN of her son. “But he’s not a terrorist; he’s a stupid kid.”

In
interviews with CNN and The New York Times, Alessa said her
son was so full of rage, he began seeing psychiatrists and taking medications to
control his moods at age 6. The boy known for screaming at his mother and
roughing up his father’s car changed schools no less than 10 times, the Times
reported.
Alessa alarmed students and
staffers at two public high schools — North Bergen and KAS Prep in 2005 and
2006, after threatening to “blow up the school, mutilate gays and punish women
who were not subordinate to men,” school officials told the Times.

The
Department of Homeland Security was alerted and North Bergen relegated Alessa to
a public library to receive his lessons under the watchful eye of a security
guard, a school spokesman said, because “administrators felt that his presence
in school posed a safety threat to other students and staff.”

Despite his
behavioral issues, Alessa’s mother said she gave her son new clothes and cell
phones.

“He was a spoiled kid,” she told the Times. “He acted like a
teenager. He thought he was a king.”

In 2005, Alessa reportedly met
Almonte, a naturalized citizen of Dominican descent who in the previous year had
converted from Catholicism to Islam. Almonte, who had been arrested for bringing
a knife to school and drinking beer in a public park, reportedly visited local
mosques and called himself Omar.

A year later, the FBI received a tip
that the two men discussed holy war and killing non-Muslims, prompting
authorities to begin to “keep a watch” on them, according to the Times. The men
traveled to Jordan in February 2007 hoping to be recruited by a militant
jihadist group, the FBI said. By 2008, Almonte was posting quotations from
jihadist clerics on his Facebook page and searches of his computer revealed he
was following teachings from al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin
Laden.

The undercover New York policeman infiltrated their inner circle
in 2009, The Star-Ledger reported. Nadia Alessa told CNN she told her son she
was suspicious of his new friend.

“Since I saw him, I warned my son and
Carlos,” she said. “But my son say, ‘Always you say about my friends they are
undercover.’ ”

Authorities allege that Alessa and Almonte’s separate
flights to Egypt on June 5 were part of their plot to go to Somalia to join
al-Shabaab, which in 2008 was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S.
government. The men were arrested and charged with conspiring to kill, maim and
kidnap persons outside the country. They were denied bail last week by a federal
judge who called them a flight risk and a potential danger to the
public.

A Swedish woman claiming to be Alessa’s fiancee, 19-year-old
Siham Abedar, 19, told New Jersey’s The Record she broke
down in tears after learning of his arrest. She said she was waiting for him in
Egypt, where they planned to marry. She denied Alessa wanted to “do jihad or
whatever.”

“I know it’s not true,” she said. “I know he wanted to get
married. He wanted to have kids. He wanted to do a lot of things.”

Filed under: Nation, Crime, Top
Stories

941 total views, 1 views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT: Girl (11) From Bedwetting to Agitation & Psychotic Break

NOTE BY Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

What a TRAGIC case and all too common! It compares with the
case of the 15 year old girl given Zoloft for warts – yes warts – and ended up
committing suicide. Of course Pfizer tried as hard as they could, albeit
unsuccessfully, to convince the court in her wrongful death suit that it
was the warts that drove her to suicide, not the Zoloft! And this case is also
very similar to the case of the little girl I discuss in my book, “Prozac:
Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare” who was given Prozac because as
an A student it was felt she spent too much time doing homework! (I thought that
was how you became an A student!) She was described before the meds as an
excellent student and well behaved child.  Yet, within days on
Prozac she was throwing herself downstairs. They then took her off the meds
and then put her back on the meds at higher doses and the Yale
study ends with her pulling her hair out and being locked in a psych
ward where she would jump up and down on her Teddy Bear screaming “Kill, kill!
Die, Die!” As I have asked for years, how many productive and caring lives have
we cut off from us all by these deadly drugs?!
Paragraph three reads:  “He also includes the stories of
individual patients, all of whom fared poorly on psychiatric medications and did
better after coming off them. One was of a young woman from Seattle
prescribed an antidepressant at age 11 to treat her bed-wetting, who then became
agitated and spiraled into full-blown psychosis.
When Whitaker met her
at age 21 she was living in a group home for the severely mentally ill, mute,
and withdrawn. Her story is heartbreaking, and the implication is that her
deterioration was triggered by the medications she was given.”

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/04/14/tying_the_rise_in_mental_illness_to_drugs_used_in_its_treatment/

Tying the rise in mental illness to drugs used in its treatment

By Dennis
Rosen

April 14, 2010

ANATOMY OF AN EPIDEMIC: Magic Bullets,
Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
By
Robert Whitaker

Crown, 416 pp., $26

In “Anatomy of an Epidemic’’
Whitaker presents his theory that the dramatic increase in mental illness in the
United States since World War II is the direct result of the medicines
psychiatrists have been prescribing to treat it, and that this itself stems from

an unholy alliance between the pharmaceutical industry and corrupt physicians.
However, although extensively researched and drawing upon hundreds of sources,
the gaps in his theory remain too large for him to succeed in making a
convincing argument.

Whitaker cites studies showing better outcomes for
patients with depression or schizophrenia who have come off their medications
than for those who have stayed on them, but doesn’t consider the possibility
that this may be because those with milder disease recovered and no longer
needed medications, while those who were sicker to begin with simply could not
do without them.

He also includes the stories of individual patients, all
of whom fared poorly on psychiatric medications and did better after coming off
them. One was of a young woman from Seattle prescribed an antidepressant at age
11 to treat her bed-wetting, who then became agitated and spiraled into
full-blown psychosis. When Whitaker met her at age 21 she was living in a group
home for the severely mentally ill, mute, and withdrawn. Her story is
heartbreaking, and the implication is that her deterioration was triggered by
the medications she was given.

But how can one be certain of this?
Perhaps she was destined for mental illness through a combination of her genes
and the environment in the same way that some children develop cancer,
irrespective of any medications they may be taking. Perhaps without the
medications given to treat her psychosis her course would have been even worse.
Many children are treated with tricyclics for bed-wetting and the vast majority
do fine. A single case does not prove the rule, and here lies the basic problem
of this book. As Whitaker himself points out, there simply are not enough data

from well-designed, trustworthy studies. And without this information, it is
impossible to conclude anything meaningful about cause and effect.

Though
there remain unanswered questions about the efficacy of some psychiatric
medications in some patients and their long-term consequences, there is no
denying that they have brought about a huge improvement in quality of life for
millions. While it is reasonable for Whitaker to raise his concerns, it is
critical to remember that hypothesis is no substitute for data.

Ignoring
this can lead to disastrous consequences, such as occurred in South Africa at
the turn of this century. Thabo Mbeki, then president of that country, refused

to accept that AIDS was caused by the HIV virus, believing instead that it was a
side effect of malnutrition and the medications used to treat AIDS itself. In
the absence of an effective treatment and prevention program, it is estimated
that 365,000 South Africans died prematurely of AIDS between the years 2000-05
(currently, 18.1 percent of South African adults have HIV/AIDS).

Those
who would seize the opportunity to cast psychiatry as a discipline into the
rubbish heap without consideration for the benefits it has brought to so many
would do well to remember how Mbeki’s inability to distinguish between theory
and fact exacted such an enormous toll in human life and
suffering.

Dr. Dennis Rosen is a pediatric lung and sleep specialist
at Children’s Hospital Boston and an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical
School.
[]
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper
Company.

1,000 total views, no views today

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.

967 total views, 1 views today

Time Released Prozac for Dogs Approved in the UK

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

And who did they pay to “cook the books” on this research?!! Was the same
researcher who just plead guilty to falsifying research for GlaxcoThe initial
studies done by Lilly on dogs and cats demonstrated that the animals given

Prozac began to growl and hiss within days on the drug and the behavior
continued until several days AFTER withdrawal of the medication. Those results
would indicate a contraindication for Prozac being given to dogs as they
have for close to two decades now.

The only thing new with Reconcile, the name of the drug in the US, is
that it is a time release Prozac. All the time released change does is make
it FAR MORE difficult to withdraw from. If your dog happens to be a
rapid metabolizer then he/she will metabolize the drug faster than expected and
go into withdrawal before the next dose is given. And according to FDA warnings
you could have a dog that could be going into a withdrawal reactions
of suicide, hostility, or psychosis. . . . We need to do a survey to see
how many dogs are running in front of mack trucks and trains instead of just
chasing cars once they begin taking this medication. 🙂 🙂
🙂 . . . . Back to the seriousness of this issue, this is an
extremely dangerous way for dogs and humans or any other living creature to take
a drug!

____________________________________

At the time, Steve Connell, Eli Lilly’s manager of consumer services for
companion animal health, said that more than 10million US dogs exhibit strange
symptoms from being left alone too long. [Hmmmmm and how many humans and other
living creatures exhibit strange symptoms from being left alone too
long?!!!]

‘Lilly research shows that 10.7million, or up to 17 per cent, of US dogs
suffer from separation anxiety,’ he said. ‘We’re thrilled that our first product
for dogs can help restore the human-pet bond.’

He said research showed that 73 per cent of dogs taking Reconcile and
undergoing therapy showed better behaviour within eight weeks, compared to dogs

receiving therapy alone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252672/A-dogs-life-set-easier-day-pet-Prozac-treat-depression.html

A dog’s life set to get easier with once-a-day pet Prozac to treat
depression

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 8:58 AM on 22nd February
2010

A dog version of the anti-depressant Prozac has been approved for sale to
British pet owners.

The one-a-day tablet, which tastes of beef, is said to help cure ‘canine
compulsive disorder’ and ‘separation anxiety’ brought on by owners’ long
absences during the day.

Symptoms include poor behaviour, whimpering or tail-chasing.

Spaniel looking sad

Down in the doggy dumps:
Once-a-day chewable tablet, which tastes of beef, has been launched in the US to
help dogs beat depression

The drug, called Reconcile, is also designed to curb the compulsive pacing,
chewing and dribbling which its makers claim is a result of depression brought
on by their owners’ long absences.

The anti-depressant Prozac has been used to cure compulsive behaviour in
humans, and works by increasing the brain’s levels of serotonin, a ‘happiness’
chemical.

Trials involving more than 660 mentally-disturbed pets in Europe and the US
produced improvements in behaviour within eight weeks.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s US manufacturer, said: ‘Treatment for companion animals
is a relatively new area for us.’

They point to research which shows that as many as 8 per cent of dogs suffer
from canine compulsive disorder.

Prozac

Pick me up: Prozac

Critics say dogs are now being diagnosed with ‘lifestyle’ illnesses so that
drugs can be marketed to treat them.

Roger Mugford, an animal psychologist, said: ‘Most breakthroughs in dog
behaviour are achieves by carrying a tidbit and using it wisely, not by
drugs.’

Reconcile has now been granted a license by the UK‘s Veterinary Medicines
Directorate.

However, it was first licensed in the US three years ago for separation
anxiety from being left alone for long periods.

The American Food and Drug Administration said it should be taken with
therapy to modify the dog’s behaviour – and should be taken by puppies as young
as six months.

At the time, Steve Connell, Eli Lilly’s manager of consumer services for
companion animal health, said that more than 10million US dogs exhibit strange
symptoms from being left alone too long.

‘Lilly research shows that 10.7million, or up to 17 per cent, of US dogs
suffer from separation anxiety,’ he said. ‘We’re thrilled that our first product
for dogs can help restore the human-pet bond.’

He said research showed that 73 per cent of dogs taking Reconcile and
undergoing therapy showed better behaviour within eight weeks, compared to dogs
receiving therapy alone.

The drug’s website says: ‘While you may not be familiar with canine
separation anxiety, you are probably familiar with its symptoms.

‘While you are gone, your dog may do one or several of the following: chew
destructively; bark or whine; inappropriate urination and/or defecation; drool;
pace; tremble; vomit – or worse.

‘Separation anxiety is a clinical condition in your dog’s brain. Your pet is
not a bad dog. Your pet’s behaviour is the result of separation
anxiety.’

In Britain, research for Sainsbury’s Bank in 2003 indicated that 632,000 dogs

and cats had suffered from depression in the previous year.

Nearly three times as many had suffered from behavioural problems which could
be linked to depression, such as attacking furniture.

Clare Moyles, Sainsbury’s pet insurance manager, said: ‘People are leading
more stressful lives and unfortunately this can have an adverse effect on the
health of our pets.

‘Cats and dogs can be very susceptible to their owner’s feelings and if they
sense that they are unhappy they can become agitated or depressed.’

Side effects of Reconcile can include lethargy, reduced appetite, vomiting,
shaking, diarrhoea, restlessness, excessive barking, aggression and seizures in
a small number of dogs.

1,195 total views, no views today

DO NOT MISS RADIO SHOW TONIGHT!!re-scheduling you for next Monday night! Eli Lilly Exec & Ann Blake-Tracy

SORRY ABOUT THE DELAY IN LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT I FOUND OUT JUST BEFORE WE WERE SUPPOSE TO GO ON THE AIR TONIGHT. I HAD SEVERAL EMERGENCIES TO DEAL WITH AND COULD NOT GET THIS OUT SOONER. HERE IS THE URGENT NOTE I GOT FROM JEFF RENSE ABOUT TONIGHT’S SHOW:

The BLIZZARD in the East has knocked out the network phone lines in PA!

I have to run an encore program tonight…can’t do anything live because
all the lines to the network are down.  ugh.

I’m re-scheduling you for next Monday night, 8-9pm Pacific…that’s the
Middle Hour of the program.

Dr. John Virapen and I have been doing shows together. We have
been so busy getting things set up that I have not yet had a chance to share the
news and introduce you to him.

Who is Dr. John Virapen? (See below for more detail.)
While general manager of the Swedish division of Eli
Lilly John BOUGHT the approval for Prozac in Sweden – yes, he bribed the
doctor responsible for making the decision to allow it on the market. Luckily
another doctor stopped that, but there was enough damage done that Lilly was
able to use what they bought to encourage other countries to approve this DEADLY
drug and pave the way for all of the Prozac clones that followed. He is now
doing all in his power to get the truth to the world about the criminal
practices of these companies and the dangers of these drugs and he wants
compensation for the victims. HE DOES NOT MINCE WORDS!
Together we hope to wake up America and then the world up to
this drug-induced nightmare!!!

Tonight John will do a national radio show with Jeff Rense and I will be on tomorrow night. In a couple of weeks we will be back on the show together again. Times for that show are: 12:00 PM Eastern, 11:00 PM Central, 10:00 PM Mountain, 9:00 PM Pacific and I will be on tomorrow night – Wednesday, February 10 at 11:00 PM Eastern, 10:00 PM Central, 9:00 PM Mountain, 8:00 PM Pacific and you can access the show online if it is not on your local station by going to the following address:

http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

Saturday we did a show with David Christopher and that
show should be posted in the next day or so and can be listened to at the
following address:
http://www.ahealthieryouradio.com/recent_show.html
If you have any ideas for places for John and I to speak, just
let me know and we will see about getting it booked. Also if you go to John’s
site below you can hear him speak this past summer in Switzerland. It is an
incredible lecture!
Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
Author: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? Our Serotonin
Nightmare & Help! I Can’t Get Off My
Antidepressant!

Welcome to John
Virapen.com.

This site is dedicated to increase awareness on the way

pharmaceutical companies work to make more profit on sick people.

Read this e-book and know why

  • you shouldn’t blindly trust your doctor or what the Pharma Companies tell
    you.

Did you know that…

  • pharmaceutical companies invest the considerable amount of 35,000 Euro per
    year and physician to get the physicians to prescribe their products?
  • more than 75 percent of leading scientists in the field of medicine are
    paid for by the pharmaceutical industry?
  • in some cases corruption prevailed in the approval and marketing of drugs?
  • illnesses are made up by the pharmaceutical industry and specifically
    marketed to enhance sales and market shares for the companies in question?
  • pharmaceutical companies increasingly target children?
  • Side Effects Death

Order
Now !!

Dr. John Virapen (1943) has
worked more than 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He worked for several
companies (Global Players) internationally. In Sweden he was general manager of
Eli Lilly and Company. He was responsible for the market launch of several
drugs,  all of them with massive side effects. He was involved in
corruption by the Pharma Industry since 1968 when he started as a salesman.

Speaking:

Dr. John Virapen is available for speaking arrangements. See the video’s
below this page and/or click
here
for contact.

Video’s:

Dr. John Virapen (1/4) Big Pharma Whistleblower Speaks Out at the AZK in
Germany

Dr. John Virapen (2/4) Big Pharma Whistleblower Speaks Out at the AZK in
Germany

Dr. John Virapen (3/4) Big Pharma Whistleblower Speaks Out at the AZK in
Germany

Dr. John Virapen (4/4) Big Pharma Whistleblower Speaks Out at the AZK in
Germany

793 total views, 1 views today

PROZAC: Young Woman Dreams of Committing Suicide: Illinois

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

This young woman has NO IDEA how lucky she is! What she is
describing here in dreaming about various ways of killing herself after starting
on Prozac is the beginning of the REM Sleep Behavior Disorder or RBD – a
condition that was not very common before Prozac hit the market.
RBD is a condition in which 86% of those being diagnosed with
it are taking an antidepressant. It is a condition in which people act out their
nightmares and 80% of those hurt themselves or someone else in doing
so.
__________________________________
Paragraphs 13 and 14 read:  “One antidepressant user, who
asked that her name be withheld, said when she sought help for what she
considered to be minor depression, doctors immediately told her drugs
were the answer.
‘They made it seem like my world was falling
apart,’  the 29-year-old said.  ‘They really pushed hard for me to
take drugs, and
I didn’t want to, but they made me think
I really needed it. So I took them’.”

“She said that after a

few weeks on Prozac, she felt numb then started having
dangerous thoughts. ‘I became emotionless.  Like,
things that should’ve made me happy, I was not excited about. Things that should
have made me sad didn’t upset me. I started dreaming about driving my car
into a wall.’
She said that according to her doctor, these were
all symptoms of her depression, but
she thinks it was
the drugs.”

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=154761

Researchers say that antidepressants are no more effective than placebo
in cases of mild or moderate depression.

Depressing truth about antidepressants

by Tina
Amirkiai

Jan 27, 2010

If you are one of the millions of people taking
antidepressants for mild depression symptoms, you might as well be taking a
placebo.

A study released by a team of researchers led by Jay C.
Fournier, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania,
found that the most commonly prescribed antidepressants do little for mild to
moderate symptoms of depression, having the same results as a placebo.

The study, published in the Jan.6 edition of the Journal of the American
Medical Association, combining previous studies with research from new clinical
trials, concluded, “There is little evidence to suggest that [antidepressants]
produce specific pharmacological benefit for the majority of patients with less
severe acute depressions.”

Dr. Paul Dobransky, a Chicago psychiatrist,
believes professionals need to look closely at each individual patient’s
symptoms and carefully diagnose the best treatment. He said there are three
angles that must be looked at when it comes to mood disorders, which he referred
to as the “bio-psycho-social” aspects.

“The biological or physical
symptoms of mood disorders are where medications are often useful,” he said.
“They cannot however, alter one’s character, personality or fix any external or
social stress the patient might be dealing with.”

Researchers used a
severity scale to evaluate the level of depression symptoms in the hundreds of

clinical trial patients, which ultimately helped determine that the
antidepressants were most effective for those with more severe disorders.

Researchers evaluated the 728 men and women, half of them had severe
depression and the other half had more moderate symptoms. They found that
compared to the placebos, the drugs caused a much steeper reduction of symptoms
in people who scored higher on the severity scale.

Researchers concluded
that, “For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of the medications
over placebo is substantial.”

Dobransky and other critics maintain that
the drug companies should be held accountable for all the advertising and sales
hype in recent years, leading directly to the overuse of drugs like
antidepressants.

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration loosened the
restrictions on the direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies. Since
then, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars advertising their
products to the general public.

Dobransky said a big part of the problem
is patients see advertisements and want to use these drugs as a quick fix.
According to him, patients often assume that mild cases of depression involving
stressful situational causes can be resolved with medicine. But he said quick
fixes like that do not exist.

“Each case needs to be set in its proper
place and in many of these cases, therapy between the patient and their doctor
is the best solution,” Dobransky said.

One antidepressant user, who
asked that her name be withheld, said when she sought help for what she
considered to be minor depression, doctors immediately told her drugs were the
answer. “They made it seem like my world was falling apart,” the 29-year-old
said. “They really pushed hard for me to take drugs, and I didn’t want to, but
they made me think I really needed it. So I took them.”

She said that
after a few weeks on Prozac, she felt numb then started having dangerous
thoughts. “I became emotionless.  Like, things that should’ve made me
happy, I was not excited about. Things that should have made me sad didn’t upset
me. I started dreaming about driving my car into a wall.” She said that
according to her doctor, these were all symptoms of her depression, but she
thinks it was the drugs.

“I just felt like instead of my doctor doing
her job as a therapist, she looked to some drug to cure me, which is
ridiculous,” she said. “It’s basically a quick fix, it solves nothing, and in my
case turned mild symptoms into severe ones.”

A spokesman for
GlaxoSmithKline, who makes paroxetine, sold as Paxil, told Bloomberg News that
“the study used for the analysis in the JAMA paper differ methodologically from
studies used to support the approval of paroxetine for major depressive
disorder, so it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the study
results.”

If you think you might be depressed, the Depression Health
Center on the WebMD Web site advises relying on licensed professionals trained
to treat depression who can help you chose the best course of treatment, which
may or may not include antidepressant drugs.
Dashed line

©2001 – 2009 Medill Reports – Chicago, Northwestern
University.  A publication of the Medill
School
.

812 total views, 1 views today

SARAFEM (PROZAC) & ROBITUSSIN: Brittany Murphy Dies Suddenly: CA

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy
(
www.drugawareness.org): Brittany
Murphy died from the use of multiple serotonergic medications – meds that
increase serotonin. She may have had pneumonia, but pneumonia does not kill that
quickly. There were clearly other contributing factors when death is so sudden
and without much warning.

When Heidi Connelly published her information on Fen-Phen and Redux causing
heart valve problems (something Brittany already suffered from) she found that
it was the elevated levels of serotonin produced by the Fen-Phen and Redux that
caused a gummy gooey glossy substance to build up on the heart valves and keep
them from shutting properly. So if Brittany‘s heart valve already did not shut
properly and you raise her serotonin levels with two serotonergic drugs – Prozac(Sarafem) and Robitussin you build the level of gummy gooey glossy substance on
that heart valve and you are in trouble.

But beyond that the increase in serotonin constricts muscle tissue
restricting air into the lungs, blood flow throughout the body, etc. – all the
major organs are constricted by elevated serotonin. When the serotonin level
gets too high (as it does when you mix two meds that increase it) you produce
death via multiple organ failure. This is what killed Daniel, Anna Nicole
Smith’s young son. It is called Serotonin Syndrome.
So, in Brittany‘s case I firmly believe that the elevated serotonin
produced by these drugs put the nail in her coffin.
Paragraph four reads:  “Investigators found prescription
medication for depression, seizures, anxiety and pain. Monjack told Lauer his
late wife used Vicoprofen and Sarafem during her menstrual
cycle. ‘”Most of the medications are mine. I suffer from seizures,’
Monjack declared. The screenwriter began to stutter and added,  ‘I suffer
from, you know, heart… my heart stopped on December 3rd when we landed from
Puerto Rico’.”
SSRI Stories note:  Sarafem is, molecule for
molecule, the same exact drug as Prozac.  It goes by a different name
because it is registered with the FDA for use in PMS.

http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2010/01/brittany_murphys_family_continues_to_deny_drug_rumors.php

Brittany
Murphy‘s Family Continues to Deny Drug Rumors

Posted on January 21, 2010Brittany Murphy‘s
husband and mother sat down with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show to
discuss the actress’ sudden death.

Murphy

died Dec. 20, and the cause of death is still unknown; toxicology
results
are expected in a few weeks.

“Let’s set the record straight
once and for all — Brittany was not taking any medication for her mood, for
anorexia,” Murphy‘s husband Simon Monjack said. “It’s utterly ridiculous
that these rumors have perpetuated.”

Investigators found prescription
medication for depression, seizures, anxiety and pain. Monjack told Lauer his
late wife used Vicoprofen and Sarafem during her menstrual cycle. “Most of the
medications are mine. I suffer from seizures,” Monjack declared. The
screenwriter began to stutter and added, “I suffer from, you know, heart… my
heart stopped on December 3rd when we landed from Puerto Rico.”

See

Brittany‘s life in photos

Murphy‘s mother Sharon began to
shake her head when Lauer asked about Brittany‘s rumored cocaine use. “It’s just
so horrific. She was diagnosed with a heart murmur when she was a young teenager
and she was terrified of anything happening to her. She never did any drugs,
ever.” Sharon replied.

The two also denied Brittany had any type of
eating disorder. “You just need to go to her favorite restaurant, Chateau
Marmont, and speak to any waiter, who would tell you that she would happily
order four plates of food and eat them all,” Monjack stated.

Monjack
also claims Murphy‘s role in “Happy Feet 2” was pulled and it broke her heart.
He explained, “Hollywood is a village and once you upset the villagers they talk
and they gossip and they rumor. They have blood on their hands, and I hope they
wash them with very hot water because of the way they treated Brittany Murphy

while she was alive.”

The grieving husband and mother have established The Brittany Murphy
Foundation
in her memory.

1,463 total views, 1 views today