Exhibit A-1 (4/8/24) [SMS] Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

🔷 EXHIBIT A-1: April 8, 2025 — Inquiry Regarding Missing Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment

1. Editorial Context Summary

On April 8, 2025, Defendant Michael Taylor made a direct and precise inquiry to his appointed counsel, Vernon Patterson (#165016), regarding the legal foundation for a Penal Code § 730 court-ordered psychiatric evaluation performed by Dr. D’Ingillo. At the heart of the exchange is a single, explosive question: Was there ever a valid court order authorizing the competency evaluation that ultimately served to suspend criminal proceedings? The response from counsel is short—but legally catastrophic.

Rather than producing a sealed minute order, signed judicial directive, or transcript reference, Mr. Patterson admits:

> "No, I was not able to find it. I just saw the bill."

This admission is not merely negligent. It potentially confirms the entire absence of lawful judicial authority for an act that directly led to Mr. Taylor’s liberty deprivation and due process suspension. The statement implicates state actors, legal counsel, and mental health personnel in an extrajudicial psychiatric intervention, likely in violation of California Penal Code § 730 and Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966).

---

2. Full Verbatim Transcript

Date: April 8, 2025

Exhibit ID: A-1

Participants:

Michael Taylor (Defendant)

Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)

---

Michael Taylor:

“Mr. Patterson,

So were you able to locate the court order for Dr. D'Ingillo's PC 730 competency assessment?”

Vernon Patterson:

“No, I was not able to find it. I just saw the bill.”

---

3. Legal Analysis and Evidentiary Commentary

This brief exchange constitutes direct evidence that no court order was found authorizing Dr. D’Ingillo’s competency assessment under California Penal Code § 730. In California, any evaluation of a defendant’s mental competence must be preceded by a finding of doubt and a corresponding court order, per People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510, 518.

Key issues:

Lack of a Valid Court Order: The admission by counsel that he could only "see the bill" but not the court order indicates the assessment was either not authorized or that the order is being unlawfully concealed, violating Taylor’s rights under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

Violation of Penal Code § 730: This statute requires a court finding before any evaluation is commissioned. The absence of such order nullifies the assessment’s legality.

Due Process Violation: If proceedings were suspended based on this assessment, Taylor’s liberty was restricted absent legal process, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC): Patterson's passive acknowledgment of this glaring procedural defect, without challenge, objection, or motion, meets the Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 threshold for prejudicial incompetence.

Further, the fact that Patterson references "just the bill" raises red flags of fraudulent billing practices or government waste, suggesting this evaluation may have been carried out without proper oversight or with fabricated legal pretext.

---

4. Forensic Psychoanalysis

Vernon Patterson:

His passive tone and lack of urgency in addressing the absence of a lawful court order demonstrates cognitive dissonance, detachment, or deliberate indifference.

The phrase “just saw the bill” minimizes the legal significance of unauthorized psychiatric interference, hinting at normalization of systemic misconduct.

His failure to escalate or report the irregularity may reflect either willful complicity or professional demoralization within the public defense culture.

Michael Taylor:

The defendant’s question is clear, procedural, and grounded in statutory rights—a reflection of heightened legal literacy and active self-advocacy.

This proactive inquiry undermines any narrative that Taylor is incapable of participating in his defense and, paradoxically, calls into question the legitimacy of the very evaluation being conducted.

His focus on accountability suggests rational mistrust stemming from prior deprivation of legal rights.

---

5. Public Interest Commentary

The public must take serious notice of what this small exchange reveals: a potentially system-wide abuse of psychiatric evaluations in Los Angeles County criminal courts—conducted without court orders, then used to justify stripping defendants of their liberty, counsel of choice, or trial rights.

This isn’t a clerical oversight. This is a fraud upon the court, exposing the underbelly of how mental health laws can be weaponized when left unchecked. ThaWilsonBlock Magazine publishes this colloquy not merely as advocacy—but as evidentiary material for systemic reform.

---

6. Credibility Links & Citations

🔎 Referenced Laws & Precedent:

People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668

Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375

California Penal Code §§ 1368, 1370, 730

California Evidence Code § 452(c)

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)

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)