I lift up my eyes to the hills!

[LadyLush]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Iggy,

Compassionate?

Should have hung him from his damn prostrate!


Lady GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Guest]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

I'm a realist, without knowing the facts of the case I can't offer Otter support. I tried to work them out but still cannot.

There is also a concern that is selfish but still valid. Does MWO get mentioned in all of this?and obtaining Baclofen via internet pharmacies in large quantities?

I could see someone, somewhere latching onto this and calling for restrictions to be put in place. Then again they could call for more research. We all know what happens when you mention baclofen to anyone in the health services - most look very afraid.

Anyway I genuinely hope the right outcome is reached.

[ignominious]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Goes deeper than this Lush

Al Megrah was convicted in a closed court on fairly inconclusive evidence. His appeal would have forced the government to reveal classified information which many believe would have vindicated him and revealed the shenanigans of the govt. in a bad light.

Suddenly he was diagnosed with prostrate cancer and given 3 months to live ('3 months to live' is a reason to grant compassionate release). This was in August 2009, today, I think he's alive and living well in Libya!

Some say Kenny MacAskill mearly was taking the expedient political path but others have pointed out that Britain has not just oil but many big business ties with Libya.

[Murphyx]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

I assumed the court action was being brought by Otter against those who refuse to prescribe baclofen for addiction. But I may be wrong.

I am prepared to fight this as long as possible whatever the cost because this treatment needs to be vindicated and needs to be rolled out as a treatment for other poor souls who are being crushed by their addictions and the attitude others have towards them.

Right on!

[Otter]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

.

[Guest]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

So what is the litigation for?Is it criminal or civil?who has it been brought by and on what grounds?Reading between the lines again it appears your wife is being prosecuted for something she did in an alcoholic or baclofen induced withdrawl. Possibly your neighbours have witnessed disturbing behaviour. I am therefore presuming the courts are thus wanting to treat your wife's problem, you wish to use Baclofen but the courts don't have that as a recommended course of treatment.

The courts can only act on the information they have, and there isn't much for Baclofen. At the moment the Doctors using Baclofen don't even have a set protocol, so hardly going to be agreed by a judge.

Can't you not accept the treatment they will offer, but arrange your own alongside it?

[Bruunhilde]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

I'm glad your wife has you beside her Otter. I wish you the best - both of you.

[ignominious]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

UK. It sounds like the litigation is 'drunk and disorderly' or something similar and that Otter is trying to prove that the disorderly part wouldn't have been present of his wife wasn't dealing with baclofen withdrawal at the time.

Its obvious that the courts can only act on the information they have which is why its necessary to compile that information in the most convincing way possible. They are allowed to act on new information or we would still be burning witches.

Accepting treatment offered by the courts would be to accept that Otter's treatment wasn't the best available for his wife and that AA and couseling (or whatever the court decides is the best treatment) is better. It would also be an admission of guilt on the Otter side when the guilt, if any, falls on the condition of the medical establishment.

Being a Londoner myself, your comment about Scotland being a barbaric place is old news but my sympathies go out to you none the less! :H

To look on the bright side, it couldn't have happened to a better person unless there is a QC out there in similar circumstances. In another mood I could liken this to a psychosomatically induced SE but I definitely wont do that. :nomonkey:

If you're in any doubt, you have my full support Otter.

[Guest]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter used the word "litigation" which is a civil action. In civil court the Judge can act on hearsay evidence I think, there is no need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas in a criminal court it is all based upon facts, and so the baclofen argument wouldn't stand.

[ignominious]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Hi UK. I think you can have criminal litigation as well but I'm not sure, I would also like to hear more from Otter about the complaint made.

[Otter]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

.

[RedThread12]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter: You are a hero to me.

Just wanted to say that. For what you've been through; for what you're going through; that even with all of that, for what you've offered in the way of experience and research and support - gritty, pushing-the-envelop kind of support that saves lives in dangerous situations.

I know you are only doing it because you have to, and if I didn't feel deep down that everything always happens for a reason I would wish for you that it hadn't had to happen like this. But it has, and the way you show up to face really, really over-the-top hard stuff deeply moves me.

Onward! 'Cause there's no other way, huh?

[Otter]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

.