Exhibit C-3 (3/18/25) [EMAIL] DSH Engages In Constructive Ratification of Fraud by Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

🧾 Exhibit C-3 – Summary of Joint Commission Response (March 18, 2025)

This exhibit contains the March 18, 2025 response from the Joint Commission’s Office of Quality and Patient Safety regarding the defendant's filed complaint concerning Department of State Hospitals–Metropolitan, Incident #24780JJA-44903OQO. The complaint detailed coercive involuntary psychiatric treatment under questionable legal authority, potentially violating the defendant's First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as California statutory patient protections under Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 5325.1, 5150, and 5250 et seq.

Despite the constitutional and human rights implications of the complaint, the Joint Commission’s response deflects accountability by narrowly interpreting its standards to exclude issues involving case management, legal improprieties, or civil rights violations—even when such violations directly compromise patient safety and quality of care.

This bureaucratic deflection implies a systemic unwillingness to acknowledge civil liberties as essential components of healthcare safety, thereby effectively shielding state hospitals from scrutiny where constitutional abuse intersects with clinical malpractice.

🔗 Exhibits Implicated:

Exhibits A-1, A-4, and A-9 – referencing the unauthorized psychiatric evaluations and concealment of the PC 730 assessment.

Exhibits B-3, B-6, and B-8 – documenting objections to involuntary treatment, misconduct by appointed mental health professionals, and administrative retaliation for asserting constitutional rights.

This refusal by the Joint Commission to intervene supports the broader claim that institutional actors are complicit—through neglect or avoidance—in permitting due process violations under the guise of mental health care. As such, C-3 further evidences a pattern of federal and state agency abdication, consistent with constructive ratification theories raised in Exhibits C-1 and C-2.

Further Comprehensive Objective Analysis 

Here is an objective, non-accusatory, and legally robust analysis of Exhibit C-3, focusing on the Joint Commission's March 18, 2025 response to the complaint regarding DSH-Metropolitan, Incident #24780JJA-44903OQO:

---

⚖️ Legal and Forensic Analysis of Exhibit C-3

Joint Commission Response – March 18, 2025

Subject: Department of State Hospitals–Metropolitan

1. Scope of the Complaint

The complaint submitted to the Joint Commission raised concerns involving the involuntary psychiatric treatment of a pretrial detainee (Michael Taylor) at a California state hospital. It challenged:

Alleged coercion and forced medication under Penal Code § 1370(a)(7).

The use of a PC 730 psychiatric report initiated without defendant’s informed consent.

Violations of constitutional due process and equal protection, under both federal and state law.

Potential violations of patient rights under California Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 5325, 5150, 5250, and related confidentiality statutes.

The complaint effectively alleged that the psychiatric care provided was not only medically suspect, but also legally unauthorized or improperly justified, thereby intertwining medical safety concerns with serious civil rights claims.

---

2. Joint Commission's Jurisdictional Position

The Joint Commission's response stated that:

> “The issues are not addressed by The Joint Commission’s standards… [It] does not act on behalf of individuals or weigh in on any legal matters/disputes.”

This is a formally correct yet substantively limiting position. The Joint Commission primarily accredits health care institutions based on compliance with clinical safety and quality standards. It does not generally adjudicate individual grievances or legal disputes.

However, the Commission does retain authority to investigate practices that implicate systemic threats to patient safety, including:

Abuse of patients in psychiatric facilities.

Failure to uphold informed consent procedures.

Ethical violations regarding involuntary treatment.

Violations of patient dignity and rights under federal CMS Conditions of Participation or Joint Commission behavioral health standards.

In this case, by summarily classifying the issue as a “legal dispute” rather than reviewing whether the institution may have systemically abused its involuntary treatment powers, the Commission arguably sidestepped its oversight responsibilities, particularly where medical actions had civil rights consequences.

---

3. Legal Implications

A. Due Process Violations (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Cal. Const. Art. I § 7)

Involuntary psychiatric treatment of pretrial detainees implicates Mathews v. Eldridge due process balancing. Any deprivation of liberty or bodily autonomy requires notice, hearing, and lawful justification.

If the treatment was based on a PC 730 report procured in violation of a court order, or without the defendant’s consent or opportunity to review the report, this may constitute:

Substantive due process violations (involuntary bodily intrusion).

Procedural due process violations (lack of adequate hearing or opportunity to object).

By failing to inquire whether these protections were upheld, the Joint Commission’s response omitted its duty to evaluate if medical conduct was predicated on unlawful process, which undermines both medical legitimacy and constitutional compliance.

B. Equal Protection Concerns (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV)

Disparate treatment of indigent or mentally ill defendants in custodial settings can give rise to Equal Protection violations. The complaint alleged that these proceedings occurred:

Without defense counsel’s informed objections.

In reliance on medical assumptions tied to religious beliefs or unsupported psychiatric labels.

The Joint Commission's narrow response fails to explore whether the institution applied its policies consistently across populations or if there was implicit bias affecting diagnosis and treatment.

C. California Welfare & Institutions Code Violations

WIC §§ 5325–5330 affirm the right of mental health patients to:

Informed participation in treatment decisions.

Freedom from unnecessary restraint and seclusion.

Religious freedom and confidentiality.

If the treatment was administered under false pretenses or with misrepresented consent (e.g., diversion vs. competency), the facility may have violated these statutory rights. The Commission's omission of any inquiry into these rights is significant.

---

4. Systemic Implication and Constructive Ratification

This response, read in conjunction with Exhibits C-1 and C-2, reveals a pattern:

C-1 (State Bar) declined to investigate ethical violations by counsel that facilitated the psychiatric pathway.

C-2 (CJP) failed to act on judicial misconduct related to pretextual court orders.

C-3 (Joint Commission) now declines to address the medical facility’s role in actualizing those contested court orders.

Together, these responses constructively ratify constitutional violations through systemic inaction. When no oversight entity is willing to scrutinize their narrow jurisdiction in light of broader constitutional violations, a de facto immunity structure emerges, insulating unlawful practices under procedural technicalities.

---

5. Connection to Exhibits A and B

This exhibit implicates the following evidentiary records:

Exhibit A-4 – Email from public defender misrepresenting the nature of psychiatric evaluation (PC 1001.36 vs. PC 730).

Exhibit A-9 – Objections to religious bias in mental health diagnosis and improper transmission of privileged information.

Exhibit B-3 – Objection to coercive psychiatric assessment administered while rights remained unprotected.

Exhibit B-6 & B-7 – Documented attempts by defendant to clarify procedural and diagnostic discrepancies tied to hospital treatment.

---

✅ Conclusion

Exhibit C-3 demonstrates not merely bureaucratic deflection, but a systemic pattern in which agencies narrowly define their authority to avoid grappling with human rights violations disguised as psychiatric or legal procedures. By failing to inquire into potentially unconstitutional conditions of confinement and treatment, the Joint Commission abstained from enforcing the very standards that should protect civil liberties in medical care settings.

The failure to act, despite clear factual allegations and supporting documentation, supports a finding of constructive ratification—a failure of state and regulatory bodies to deter, correct, or expose abuse within their sphere of influence.

THE VERNON PATTERSON DOSSIER EXHIBIT INDEX:

EXHIBITS A: COMMUNICATIONS

• Exhibit A-1 (4/8/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment
• Exhibit A-2 (5/8/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt
• Exhibit A-3 (5/12/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue”
• Exhibit A-4 (5/13/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam
• Exhibit A-5 (5/14/25): [COURT ORDER] Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud
• Exhibit A-6 (5/15/25): [SMS] Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge
• Exhibit A-7 (5/23/25): [SMS] Judge Michael Carter Leverages Executive Authority Despite Lacking Jurisdiction; Patterson Weaponizes Silence
• Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25): [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up
• Exhibit A-9 (6/3/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations
• Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process

EXHIBITS B: TRANSCRIPTS

• 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-2 (2/14/24) [EVALUATION] Unauthorized Competency Report Submitted in Violation of Court Order and Statutory Privileges (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-3 (2/14/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-4 (2/28/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Appearance Waived, New Judge Assigned, Competency Hearing Continued W/O Jurisdictional Clarity (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-5 (5/1/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Withholds Consent Pending Constitutional Challenge — Evaluation Aborted (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-6 (6/21/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Refuses Evaluation Until Prior Due Process Violation Is Cured — No Opinion Rendered (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-7 (8/30/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Involuntary Medication Order Recommended Solely on Records and Prior Contested Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• 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-9 (5/14/24) [COURT ORDER] Court Authorizes Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation at Defense Request Following Accusations of Constructive Abandonment and Due Process Violations (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

EXHIBITS C: REDRESS

• Exhibit C-1 (4.28.24) [COMPLAINT] Material Falsehoods & Constructive Ratification by The California State Bar (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-2 (3/20/24) CJP Complaint on Judge Clover (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-3 (3/18/25) [EMAIL] DSH Engages In Constructive Ratification of Fraud by Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-4 (5/15/25) [EMAIL] Sydney Kamlager-Dove Engages In Constructive Abandonment of Constituent Amidst Judicial Fraud (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-5 (4/8/24) [EMAIL] The Cochran Firm Declines Representation; Mandatory Reporting Duties Still Implied (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-6 (5/18/25) [EMAIL] ACLU of Southern California – Declination, Constructive Notice, and Failure of Mandated Reporting Duties (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-7 (6/10/25) [EMAIL] Judicial Acknowledgment of Fraud Upon The Court By 2nd Appellate District Court of California (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-8 (6/15/25) [EMAIL] Trump's DOJ Endorses Constructive Judicial Misconduct That Originated Under Biden (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-9 (6/22/25) [EMAIL] Congresswoman Judy Chu Receives Formal Complaint of Fraud Upon The Court After DOJ Closed Complaint (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-10 (7/1/25) [LAWSUIT] California Attorney General Rob Bonta Violates Equal Protection of Defendant Michael Taylor (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)