LA Judge Denies Current Rec...

By Red Beard
June 09, 2010

Judge Leland Harris Dept 107, Van Nuys Division of Los Angeles County court system today decided that the valid recommendation that I brought to court was no good. Judge Harris told me that the court would only accept recommendations from doctors from UCLA, & USC. â??He said, â??Reputable Doctorsâ?� I told him that I was unaware that under California law that there were any distinctions between doctors. He told me, â??that there were to many sham doctors out there that will give a recommendation to anyone who wanted itâ?�. I would now have to have a good doctor at USC or UCLA agree with the â??notâ?� so good or â??Notâ?� good enough doctor that I went too originally for my evaluation. Then this new doctor needs to write down on their letterhead, that MM is okay for meâ?¦then this is to be taken to court. This is the equivalent to, â??bring me the wicked witch of the westâ??s broom stickâ?�.

I though that this must have been a joke. What did he just say? Under Cal. H & S 11362.7(a), "Attending physician" means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate or helpful.

I did bring for the courts consideration all of my prescriptions. I am on 9 different Rx drugs to deal with a host of ailments including Heart Stint Placement, Cholesterol, Diabetes, Blood Pressure, Depression, Ocular Pressure (Glaucoma)â??all of which I brought to the court on UCLA stationary. Judge Harris did not even want to see it. I told him that I had brought them. All he was concerned with was my medical marijuana recommendation, and the doctor from which it came.

I thought there were laws in place to prevent me from having my medical history and medications from being public knowledge. Why is it that the court wants to see more? I use medical marijuana for depression. That is what I told my doctor in 2008 when I got my first medical recommendation and that is what I told my doctor last week when I got my most current recommendation. Is my whole metal health history going to be made a matter of record? The doctor in whom I choose to put my confidence is going to be questioned by a criminal court judge? What if I had not been the one to ask for a court hearing on this matter? What if I had been stopped and sited by a police officer? I would have showed up in front of Judge Harris with my valid, current recommendationâ??and because it was not written by a doctor that â??thisâ?� judge recognizes as a â??GOODâ?� doctor I would be treated with no consideration being given to proposition 215.

So what will become of me? I will continue on with my 3 years of probation. As a condition of my probation reading:
 Not to use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs or associated paraphernalia, except with valid prescription, and stay away from places where users, buyers or sellers congregate, except in an authorized drug-counseling program.

Now the first time my probation officer wants a urine test to be sure that I am not on meth, or heroin it is going to show that I have been consuming marijuana. My freedom and liberty are at risk if I donâ??t have this second special Judge Leland Harris recommendation from a good doctor at USC or UCLA that says that it is okay for me to use medical marijuana for the treatment of my depression.

To start with UCLA and USC are medical hospitals. I use medical marijuana for a mental health illness. So I would not be able to find a psychiatrist there that is willing to see me and go down the â??yellow brick roadâ?� of Judge Harris

I am not a rich man. I donâ??t have the money to get a layer. But I know that this is wrong.

Illegal activism from the bench, what the GOP claimed the Democrats were doing. Any judge who interprets law like this deserves to be removed from the bench. :mad: