Exhibit B-8 (8.30.24) [MINUTE ORDER] Judicial Authorization of Forced Medication, Voter Disqualification, and Broad HIPAA Disclosure Without Procedural Redress (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-8: August 30, 2024 — Involuntary Medication Order and Civil Disabilities Imposed by Mental Health Court

Judicial Authorization of Forced Medication, Voter Disqualification, and Broad HIPAA Disclosure Without Procedural Redress

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Minute Order – Page 2 of 3 (Filed August 30, 2024)

> “The Court finds that the Defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding psychotropic medication. If untreated with psychotropic medication, it is probable that the Defendant will suffer serious harm to his physical or mental health.

It is medically appropriate to treat the Defendant's psychiatric condition with psychotropic medication. This medication is likely to be effective. The treatment facility is authorized to administer involuntary psychotropic medication to the Defendant in an objectively reasonable manner consistent with the facility's policies when and as prescribed by the Defendant's treating psychiatrist.

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1370(a)(7), the involuntary medication order is in effect for three months or until maximum commitment date. The expiration date is Monday, December 2, 2024.

Los Angeles County Community Program Director or designee is ordered to provide a written recommendation for Placement pursuant to Penal Code Section 1370(A)(2)(A). Said report is due Tuesday, October 8, 2024.

The clerk is ordered to send the packet to Gateways/CONREP four days from this date.

Gateways/Conrep is/are ordered to examine MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR at NORF.Bkg.# 6817815.

This Court expressly orders you to provide complete access to all patient records for the patient involved in a particular case. “Patient records” include written and oral materials.

This access shall be available to the following persons: Court staff, including Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health personnel assigned to the Mental Health Court; County Counsel attorneys and personnel; District Attorney deputies and personnel; Public Defender attorneys and personnel; court appointed psychiatrist, psychologist, attorneys, Department of State Hospital doctors or designee Gateways/CONREP.

MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR is disqualified from voting or registering to vote pursuant to Elections Code Section 2211.

The Court orders the above named person not to own, use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms, knives or other concealable weapons.”

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This minute order represents a pivotal escalation in People v. Michael Taylor, where the court authorizes involuntary psychiatric medication, suspension of fundamental civil rights, and a sweeping breach of patient confidentiality — all under disputed procedural conditions and without direct participation by the defendant.

1. Involuntary Medication Order — PC § 1370(a)(7)

The court authorizes forced administration of psychotropic drugs for three months or until the maximum statutory commitment date.

This follows Dr. Tumu’s IMO recommendation (Exhibit B-7), which was rendered without conducting a clinical interview of Mr. Taylor and relied heavily on a prior evaluation known to be procedurally flawed (Exhibit B-2).

2. Voter Disqualification and Weapons Ban

Pursuant to Elections Code § 2211, the court strips Mr. Taylor of his right to vote or register to vote, a constitutional liberty interest.

The court also imposes a blanket weapons ban — without notice, hearing, or demonstration that such restrictions were legally or factually necessary beyond the medication issue.

3. Mass Disclosure of Privileged Medical Records — HIPAA & Due Process Concerns

Citing HIPAA § 164.512(e)(1)(i), the court permits unrestricted access to Mr. Taylor’s entire medical and psychiatric record to numerous parties, including:

District Attorney

Public Defender

County Counsel

Mental Health evaluators

Gateways/CONREP

This order is not limited in scope, duration, or subject matter — a standing order with no defined review.

This raises serious constitutional implications:

Violation of privacy rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause.

Violation of California Evidence Code §§ 1014–1015, which protect patient-psychologist privilege unless specific statutory exceptions are met — none of which are apparent on the record.

Violation of Evidence Code § 730 limitations, which govern the confidentiality of expert evaluations unless properly waived.

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This order says the state can:

Force psychiatric drugs on Michael Taylor,

Strip him of his right to vote,

Ban him from owning any weapon,

And open all his private medical records to government agencies — without a trial, without a hearing where he could defend himself, and without even being present.

That’s not just harsh. That’s dangerous.

Here’s what’s wrong:

A doctor said he needed forced meds — without ever meeting him.

A previous evaluation that justified this decision was based on a fake court date.

The court just accepted it all — without fixing those errors first.

Then they said:

> “Let’s medicate him, take away his rights, and give everyone his medical records.”

That’s not how justice is supposed to work in a constitutional democracy.

When people lose rights — especially basic ones like voting or refusing medication — it must be done by law, with facts, and with real hearings, not rubber-stamped paperwork.

---

🔹 Implication for the Dossier

Exhibit B-8 memorializes the judicial ratification of compounding violations: the court relied on flawed evaluations (see B-2 and B-7), disregarded the absence of a valid waiver of privilege (see B-1), and authorized coercive state action over the defendant’s body, mind, and civil rights.

This order:

Finalized a trajectory of due process erosion,

Enabled the continued concealment of upstream violations, and

Signaled that Mr. Taylor’s resistance to unlawful process would be met with invasive countermeasures rather than accountability.

This makes Exhibit B-8 a critical fulcrum in the overall argument that the proceedings have diverged from legality and entered systemic abuse.