Exhibit B-1 (10.2.23) [SMS] Judge Suzette Clover Appoints Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo As Confidential Expert for Mental Health Diversion (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-1: Court Order – Judge Suzette Louise Clover (October 2, 2023)

Appointment of Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo for PC 1001.36 Diversion Evaluation (Confidential)

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt (Filed 10/02/2023)

> “ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIST/PSYCHOLOGIST – UNDER SEAL

GOOD cause having been shown, Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo, Psy.D., PACE No. 834041440, is hereby appointed as a confidential expert to examine all reports in the above-entitled case, evaluate the defendant for mental health diversion pursuant to PC 1001.36, and consult with defense counsel. The expert is appointed pursuant to Sections 730, 952, and 1001.36 of the California Evidence Code.

Pursuant to those sections, any reports generated as a result of the consultation will be confidential.

All costs incurred are to be paid by the County of Los Angeles. Dr. D’Ingillo shall be paid a rate of $750.”

Signed: Hon. Judge Suzette Louise Clover

Superior Court of California – County of Los Angeles

Case No. GA111132

Attorney of Record: Danielle Daroca Bell, Deputy Public Defender (#265746)

Filed: October 2, 2023 – CONFIRMED COPY, FILED UNDER SEAL

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This document is a judicially sealed appointment order strictly assigning Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo to evaluate the defendant solely for eligibility under Penal Code §1001.36, which governs pretrial mental health diversion — not competence to stand trial.

The order explicitly invokes Evidence Code §§ 730 and 952, confirming:

The evaluation is initiated by the defense, not the court or prosecution.

All findings and consultations are confidential and privileged under attorney-client protections and cannot be disclosed without express waiver by the defendant.

No authority is granted for a Penal Code §1368 or §1370 competency determination, which must be separately authorized by judicial declaration of doubt under PC §1368(b).

Key Procedural Implications:

Violation of Scope: If Dr. D’Ingillo authored a PC §730 competency evaluation report to the court, it exceeded the scope of this sealed order and is unauthorized.

Violation of Privilege: Disclosure or judicial reliance on that report without waiver would violate EC §§ 952, 1017, and PC §1001.36(f).

Due Process Breach: Using an improperly expanded psychiatric report to suspend proceedings under PC §1368 or detain the defendant violates the 14th Amendment right to due process, and constitutes fraud upon the court under Pumphrey v. K.W. and related precedents.

This order aligns directly with Exhibit A communications in which the defendant repeatedly objected to the misuse of this sealed evaluation as grounds for competency proceedings — objections which were ignored or dismissed by counsel.

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This document is like a doctor's note with strict instructions: The court told the doctor to only examine whether the defendant should qualify for a pretrial diversion program — like a mental health rehab option before trial. The judge even said this would be confidential.

But what happened next? The doctor ignored those instructions and submitted a full-blown mental competency report — without permission, without a new order, and without the defendant's consent.

The law is very clear: a judge must first declare doubt about someone's ability to stand trial before a competency evaluation can even happen. That never happened here. Instead, the private mental health exam was misused to claim the defendant was legally incompetent — allowing the court to suspend the case and send him to a state hospital.

That’s not just a mistake — it’s illegal. It’s like being arrested based on a medical report your doctor wasn’t allowed to write in the first place.

This single order — signed by Judge Clover — is Exhibit B-1, the smoking gun that proves the entire psychiatric process was unlawful from the beginning.