Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25) [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

🔷 EXHIBIT A-8: May 28–29, 2025 — Final Legal Stand: Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up

---

1. Overview

This two-day exchange is the crescendo of a constitutional standoff between Defendant Michael Taylor and Public Defender Vernon Patterson (#165016). It arrives after:

The production of a sealed court order Patterson long denied existed;

The demand for a consent waiver that would justify prior psychiatric disclosures made by former counsel Danielle Daroca-Bell (#265746);

And Patterson’s admission that no such waiver exists, confirming a violation of attorney-client privilege.

This is the moment the Defendant cornered his own attorney in the full exposure of a due process and privacy breach. In return, Patterson’s only defense was a psychological deflection and resignation—offering zero legal answers, but instead citing discomfort with public accountability.

---

2. Verbatim Transcript

Date: May 28–29, 2025

Exhibit ID: A-8

Participants:

Michael Taylor (Defendant)

Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)

---

5/28/25

Patterson:

Let me know when you want to surrender. I want to explain to the court why you feel it is necessary to stop proceedings until competency issues have been addressed. Remember the last go around you were complaining about the Public Defender declaring a conflict of interest. I think we have a conflict now too. I will explain it all to the judge.

---

Michael Taylor:

We've had a conflict of interest since day one, Mr. Patterson. I don't appreciate the tricks and gimmicks you play with me. You go tell tha judge whatever you want. I need a verified authentic copy of the court order for Dr. D'Ingillo's assessment and tha PACE form that you told Judge Carter existed. Lastly, I'll need a copy of the consent waiver for Ms. Bell's disclosure of privileged communications to Dr. D'Ingillo. These should be reasonable considering that they must already exist. I promise I will not delay on surrendering once these things are verified. If for any reason you're unable or unwilling to do that, I'm afraid I can no longer participate in this farce. You are a defense attorney, not a district attorney. The state has their representative already, and your representation legitimatizes tha charges instead of defending me from them. I will not be giving you any upper hand here. You know there is no court order or PACE form for Dr. D'Ingillo's assessment. Why do you keep playing games, Mr. Patterson? Why do you imply stopping criminal proceedings just to address tha lack of a court order? It happened in this case, it'll be addressed in this case. It happened during criminal proceedings, it'll be addressed during criminal proceedings. How are you all this far off kilter?

---

Patterson:

Your rights are protected. Because you are on bench warrant status, your speedy trial rights will not start until you are back in court. The prosecution will have 60 days to bring your case to trial. I doubt that the court will let me continue to represent you, in which case your new lawyer may ask for more time to get ready.

---

Michael Taylor:

Mr. Vernon Patterson, Please stop telling me my rights are protected when Dr. D'Ingillo literally fabricated a minute order in his assessment. Please see attached. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that February comes before October every year. I have sent 10s of hundreds of emails noting my objections and helping you understand your role as a defense attorney. There is no court order or pace form for Dr. D'Ingillo's assessment that ultimately led to my unlawful commitment to a state hospital and forced medication. Both speedy trial rights and voting rights were also violated. If Dr. D'Ingillo knew no court order existed, why would he give the appearance of one? If it is true there is no court order or pace form, I perceive this as an attempted murder by the court. PC 1368 is explicit in that the court orders an evaluation after doubt is declared. The court skipped this process entirely before transferring jurisdiction. You incompetent lawyers have suppressed all my legal arguments and prejudiced my defense by forcing me to waive rights as a result of your dereliction of duty and abandonment. You showed me the new court order for an evaluation by Judge Carter, now kindly show me tha one that should already exist authorizing Dr. D'Ingillo's assessment. First, you said the 10/2/24 minute order date was a "typo" w/o verifying the court order. Then, you affirmed to me via email and text AND to Judge Carter in a Marsden hearing that no court order exists, but that you found a PACE form (that also doesn't exist, either). And now, you're telling me that the court order is under seal. Which is it, Mr. Patterson? If the court order is under seal, you should still have access to it as we both are parties in the case. If the court order is under seal, how would you know it's for Dr. D'Ingillo's assessment if you didn't have access to it? If the court order is under seal, why isn't the assessment itself under seal considering it contains sensitive information? Your representation, Mr. Patterson, is nothing but pure manipulation. I am standing by to afford you one last opportunity to conduct yourself honestly and with integrity. You have caused me serious psychological and emotional harm from all this.

---

Patterson:

Here is the document you requested. And notice that it was filed under seal.

---

Michael Taylor:

Received. Thank you. Now for that consent waiver and I'll go to tha police station right now.

---

Patterson:

There is no waiver. I’m not going to look for that but she was within her duty to give the doctor your writing just in this situation when you are sharing your thoughts to everyone on this thread. You are only hurting yourself. You have a good case but you are making things difficult.

---

Michael Taylor:

No, sir. Attorney-client privilege protects me, not the attorney. My statement was made to her and her supervisor only. I never shared that with the doctor. Furthermore, I explicitly waived Attorney-client privilege for specific reasons. You received this email as well, Mr. Patterson.

---

5/29/25

Patterson:

As soon as you turn yourself in it can be addressed. Nothing will happen while the case is in bench warrant status.

---

Michael Taylor:

I didn't have to be in court for a court order to be issued. I think we all know what you have to do here. No way am I giving you guys tha upper hand after all this. The public defenders violated the court order without me being in court. Ms. Bell can take tha elevator from tha 3rd floor to tha 5th floor to inform Judge Carter. Yes, the judge doesn't need to wait for a hearing to address the violation. The judge can take immediate corrective action as soon as they are made aware of the breach. I don't think there's much more participation required of me. Rather, you being my lawyer, you have tha obligation to straighten this out. Even at your own expense.

---

Patterson:

No, I don’t think I can be your attorney anymore. I have to ask the court if I can continue. I don’t know why you continue to contact me. You put my family pictures in public spaces. You are confused.

---

Michael Taylor:

If that's all it took to get you off my case I should've done that months ago. When are you declaring a conflict of interest? The public defenders did it outside of court and Judge Kaye approved it. I don't think it'll be a problem for you to declare a conflict without my participation. Surely you have already denied me effective representation.

---

3. Legal and Procedural Analysis

🔹 Key Constitutional Violations Confirmed

No PACE form. No statute permits a PC 730 evaluation without a formal court order plus a procedural PACE form (Penal Code § 1368.1, § 1369).

No consent waiver. There is no written, signed document authorizing Ms. Bell to share confidential communications with Dr. D’Ingillo. This violates:

Attorney-Client Privilege (Evid. Code § 954),

HIPAA and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA),

Sixth Amendment protections under Weatherford v. Bursey (1977).

Unsealed privileged content. If the court order is sealed, so too must be the report that relies on that court order. The inconsistency here proves either:

Improper sealing procedure, or

Intentional waiver of due process.

🔹 Judicial Misconduct Implied by Inaction

As noted:

> “Ms. Bell can take the elevator from the 3rd floor to the 5th floor to inform Judge Carter.”

This is not flippancy. This is a real-world assertion that jurisdictional corrections are ministerial, not discretionary. The failure to correct after actual knowledge becomes constructive ratification of fraud upon the court.

---

4. Forensic Psychoanalysis

Michael Taylor:

Demonstrates sustained cognitive clarity, legal specificity, and procedural insight.

Does not waver from jurisdictional logic.

Adopts calm escalation—offering surrender in exchange for transparency.

Vernon Patterson:

Makes inconsistent procedural claims (PACE form, sealed orders, waiver logic),

Deflects blame to avoid responsibility,

Evokes personal victimhood when cornered,

Ends communication with an emotional exit instead of a legal position—tactical abandonment.

---

5. Public Interest Commentary

This exhibit connects every prior thread in the Vernon Patterson Dossier:

The false court order narrative from Exhibit A-1,

The coercive psychiatric escalation in Exhibits A-4, A-5, & A-6,

The bench warrant entrapment in Exhibit A-7,

Culminating in this confession: "There is no waiver."

This is a full-throttle due process collapse, not from error, but from knowing evasion by a defense attorney. The consequences are catastrophic: hospitalization without lawful cause, violated privilege, and silenced court objections.

Yet it ends exactly where it began:

> "Show me the order, and I will surrender."

And they still can’t.

---

6. Credibility Links & Legal Citations

📚 Cited Authorities:

• California Evidence Code § 954 (Attorney-Client Privilege)
• California Penal Code §§ 1368–1370, 730
• Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) 429 U.S. 545
• Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668
• People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531
• HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR Part 164
• CMIA, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 56–56.37
• California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.4
• U.S. v. Tobias (9th Cir. 1983) 662 F.2d 381

THE VERNON PATTERSON DOSSIER EXHIBIT INDEX:

EXHIBITS A: COMMUNICATIONS

• Exhibit A-1 (4/8/24) [SMS] Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-2 (5/8/24) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-3 (5/12/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue” (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-4 (5/13/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-5 (5/14/25) [COURT ORDER] Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-6 (5/15/25) [SMS] Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-7 (5/23/25) [SMS] Judge Michael Carter Leverages Executive Authority Despite Lacking Jurisdiction; Patterson Weaponizes Silence (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25) [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-9 (6/3/25) [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)