EXHIBIT B-2 (2/14/24) [EVALUATION] Unauthorized Competency Report Submitted in Violation of Court Order and Statutory Privileges (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-2: PC §730 Competency Evaluation by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo (Filed February 28, 2024)

Unauthorized Competency Report Submitted in Violation of Court Order and Statutory Privileges

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt (Filed 2/28/2024)

> "Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 10/02/2024, I have evaluated Mr. Taylor for the purpose of a Penal Code (PC) 730 Competency Assessment."

“Statement of Non-Confidentiality: The defendant was explained and understood aspects of non-confidentiality inherent in this evaluation.”

Date of Evaluation: January 5, 2024 and January 18, 2024 (conducted telephonically)

Counsel Listed:

For the People: The State of California

For the Respondent: D. Daroca, Deputy Public Defender

Summary of Opinion:

A. The defendant has a major mental disease, disorder, or defect.

B. The defendant is not competent (see report).

Signed: Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo, Psy.D.

Filed: February 28, 2024, Superior Court of California

Prepared For: Judge Suzette Clover, Department F

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This document constitutes an unauthorized Penal Code §730 competency evaluation, filed in violation of both the October 2, 2023 sealed court order and applicable statutory protections.

Key Legal Conflicts:

1. False Citation of Authority:

Dr. D’Ingillo refers to a “Minute Order dated 10/02/2024” as his basis for authority. No such minute order exists for that date. The only documented order is from October 2, 2023, which explicitly authorized only a confidential PC §1001.36 diversion evaluation under Evidence Code §§ 730, 952, and 1017 — not a public PC §730 competency assessment.

2. Breach of Confidentiality:

The October 2 order was filed under seal and restricted all resulting communications to defense-only consultation. By unilaterally converting the evaluation into a non-confidential court report and submitting it as a PC §730 competency determination, Dr. D’Ingillo violated Evidence Code §§ 952 and 1017, which bar the disclosure of confidential therapeutic communications without informed, voluntary, and specific waiver.

3. Jurisdictional Defect:

Under Penal Code §1368(b), a court may order a PC §730 competency evaluation only after formally declaring doubt as to the defendant’s mental competency. There is no record of such a declaration before this report was filed. Thus, the evaluation lacks a lawful foundation and constitutes a procedural nullity.

4. Fabrication of Legal Basis:

The citation of a non-existent “Minute Order dated 10/02/2024” may represent an intentional fabrication or reckless misstatement, which materially misleads the court and violates California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201 (accurate citations in court documents), and may implicate Penal Code §132 (offering false evidence).

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This document shows how a psychologist issued a public mental competency report that was never legally approved. Here's how:

The doctor says he was told by the court to evaluate whether the defendant was competent to stand trial.

But the only court order — from October 2, 2023 — says the doctor was only allowed to evaluate whether the defendant qualified for a mental health diversion program and to keep that evaluation private.

Despite this, the doctor filed a public court report, claimed the defendant was mentally unfit, and said the court had ordered it — based on a made-up court date.

What does this mean for the defendant?

This fraudulent report was used to declare the defendant incompetent and lock him up in a psychiatric hospital — even though the process to do that was never followed.

It's like a doctor writing a prescription that the court never asked for, then using it to send someone to the hospital — and then everyone pretends it's legitimate. That’s not just unethical — it’s unconstitutional.

---

This evaluation — Exhibit B-2 — is a critical link in proving that the court-ordered mental health diversion evaluation was weaponized into a fraudulent competency proceeding without any legal authority. It also corroborates the Exhibit A communications, where the defendant repeatedly demanded verification of the court order and was ignored.