Defendant Files State Bar Complaints on Government Attorneys As Last Legal Recourse in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA1111-32)

Justice in the Spotlight: Defendant Publishes Bar Complaints to Expose Alleged Misconduct in Hollywood Mental Health Court*

In a rare and courageous move aimed at protecting due process and preserving constitutional rights, a local criminal defendant has taken the extraordinary step of publicly releasing formal complaints filed with the California State Bar against three key legal figures involved in his ongoing case in **Hollywood Mental Health Court**. The individuals named include bar panel attorneys **Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell** and **Vernon Patterson**, as well as **Deputy District Attorney Sharon Ransom**.

The defendant asserts that all three engaged in or enabled serious legal and ethical violations stemming from an **unauthorized mental competency evaluation**, which led to his **unlawful commitment to a state hospital** and **the suspension of his criminal proceedings without lawful jurisdiction**. The complaints detail a pattern of **procedural abuse, suppression of exculpatory information, and collusion between defense and prosecution**, which the defendant alleges amounts to systemic entrapment.

This publication serves a dual purpose: to inform the public of troubling practices within a court system rarely subject to scrutiny, and to **create a public record** that may **shield the defendant from potential retaliation or further deprivation of rights** within a court that, he argues, has already shown signs of institutional suppression and misconduct.

The following are the full-text complaints submitted to the California State Bar—reproduced here to ensure transparency and accountability in a system that too often operates in silence, especially in mental health courtrooms. These documents provide a compelling look at how procedural shortcuts and compromised advocacy can dismantle the very foundations of justice for vulnerable individuals.

Read the complaints below and decide for yourself: is this the justice system at work—or a serious failure of the safeguards meant to protect us all?

---

Formal Complaint Against Public Defender Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell

**Re: Misconduct, Unauthorized Competency Evaluation, and Violations of Constitutional and Fiduciary Duties Resulting in Unlawful Hospital Commitment**

Dear State Bar,

I am filing this formal complaint against **Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell**, a public defender who was assigned to represent me in my criminal matter pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Hollywood Courthouse). Ms. Daroca-Bell’s conduct not only demonstrated gross negligence and ethical violations, but actively contributed to a cascade of constitutional infringements that resulted in **my unlawful psychiatric commitment and denial of key civil rights.**

---

### **Summary of Events and Jurisdictional Defect**

On **January 5 and January 18, 2024**, a Penal Code § 730 competency assessment was conducted by Dr. D’Ingillo. **At that time, there was no judicial finding of doubt, nor any court order authorizing an evaluation**. In fact, the court would not declare doubt or issue any related order until **February 14, 2024**, at which point it attempted to retroactively authorize the prior evaluation via minute order.

This foundational flaw—initiated by Ms. Daroca-Bell without court authority—invalidates every downstream proceeding. **Danielle Daroca-Bell unilaterally arranged a competency assessment without legal authority**, and **without my informed consent or a signed waiver of privilege**, thereby:

* Violating my right to confidentiality and privacy;

* Enabling the use of privileged communications (including religious beliefs) to be weaponized in support of a finding of incompetence;

* Triggering a jurisdictionally defective commitment process that resulted in my unlawful hospitalization from **October 29, 2024, to December 26, 2024**.

Ms. Daroca-Bell **failed to obtain or produce a valid court order** for the evaluation and never ensured that I had provided **voluntary, informed consent for disclosure of privileged or confidential information** used in the report.

---

### **Subsequent Harm and Violations**

As a direct result of Ms. Daroca-Bell’s unauthorized actions:

1. **I was deprived of my liberty** without due process;

2. **I was committed based on evaluations rooted in an unlawful PC 730 assessment**, which was later used by another doctor (Dr. Tumu) to support an involuntary medication recommendation;

3. **I was denied my right to vote** in the **November 5, 2024, federal election** due to being unlawfully hospitalized at the time;

4. **My right to a speedy trial** has been violated as the proceedings were suspended based on fruit of the poisonous tree—evaluations that would not have existed without Ms. Daroca-Bell’s misconduct.

Despite the profound constitutional and procedural defects, **Ms. Daroca-Bell never objected to the use of the unauthorized evaluation**, nor did she act to preserve my rights for appellate review. She facilitated the court’s use of this unlawful report as substantial evidence of incompetence, effectively entrenching a false and illegal foundation beneath the case.

---

### **Violations of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act**

The actions (and omissions) of Ms. Daroca-Bell violate multiple professional duties and ethical obligations, including:

* **Rule 1.1** – Failure to provide competent representation;

* **Rule 1.3** – Failure to act with diligence and dedication;

* **Rule 1.6 & 1.9** – Unauthorized disclosure of confidential communications;

* **Rule 3.3** – Permitting the court to rely on unlawful evidence without disclosure or correction;

* **Rule 8.4(c)** – Engaging in dishonest conduct or assisting unlawful procedural shortcuts;

* **Business & Professions Code § 6068(a)** – Duty to uphold the laws and constitution;

* **§ 6068(d)** – Obligation to represent clients with integrity and to avoid misleading the court.

---

### **Failure to Protect Client and Preserve Rights**

Instead of acting to correct the record or challenge the jurisdictional violations, Ms. Daroca-Bell became complicit in suppressing due process. Her failure to safeguard my liberty interests and preserve these defects for review places her in breach of her **fiduciary duty as defense counsel**.

Worse still, the **retroactive judicial ratification of her unauthorized actions**, which she helped facilitate, allowed the court to cloak the illegal evaluation in a pretense of legitimacy. That she stood by as her own actions were used as "evidence" against me is not only unethical—it is **legally unconscionable**.

---

### **Urgent Request for Bar Investigation and Accountability**

I am requesting that the State Bar immediately investigate:

1. Whether Ms. Daroca-Bell can produce **a court order dated prior to January 5, 2024**, authorizing the PC 730 evaluation she arranged;

2. Whether a **signed waiver of privilege** or informed consent exists for the disclosure of religious and confidential information used against me;

3. Whether her omissions and procedural failures amount to **gross negligence, misconduct, or criminal wrongdoing.**

---

### **Conclusion: Restoring Trust and Ethical Legal Representation**

The role of a public defender is to **defend liberty, not to preemptively surrender it**. Ms. Daroca-Bell's actions represent a disturbing abuse of power and process that extend beyond my individual case and into a systemic concern. When court-appointed counsel initiates competency proceedings outside judicial authorization and conceals it from challenge, **the entire criminal defense system is undermined.**

The State Bar must intervene to investigate and take corrective disciplinary action. If no accountability follows, this sets a precedent that will allow unauthorized psychiatric commitments to occur again—without court oversight, without informed consent, and without the protections our legal system promises every person, regardless of charges or mental health status.

I am prepared to submit supporting documentation and records upon request. Please do not hesitate to contact me.

---

Formal Complaint Against Bar Panel Attorney Vernon Lloyd Patterson #165016 

**Re: Misconduct, Negligence, and Rights Violations Relating to PC 730 Competency Proceedings and Resulting Unlawful Commitment**

Dear State Bar,

I am submitting this formal complaint against **bar panel attorney Vernon Patterson**, who was appointed by the court in my pending criminal case at the Hollywood Courthouse. Mr. Patterson's conduct reflects a **gross abdication of fiduciary duty**, a **willful failure to safeguard my constitutional rights**, and **complicity in an unlawful chain of events** that resulted in my **wrongful commitment to a state hospital**. The consequences of his misconduct continue to prejudice my defense and undermine the rule of law.

---

### **Background of Jurisdictional Defect and Constitutional Violations**

On **January 5 and January 18, 2024**, a psychological competency evaluation was conducted by Dr. D’Ingillo—**without any court order** authorizing the assessment. Despite this, on **February 14, 2024**, the judge retroactively issued a minute order attempting to validate these evaluations. That same day, doubt was declared, criminal proceedings were suspended, and jurisdiction was transferred to the mental health court. These actions were **procedurally backward, unconstitutional, and void on their face.**

**Mr. Patterson never challenged this retroactive validation** nor objected to the use of illegally obtained evidence. On the contrary, he passively allowed the court to treat the unlawful evaluation as **substantial evidence** of incompetence. This dereliction of duty directly led to my **commitment to a state hospital** between **October 29, 2024, and December 26, 2024**, where I was subjected to further evaluations and **recommended for involuntary medication** by Dr. Tumu—based solely on the original unlawful foundation.

---

### **Violations of Professional Responsibilities**

Mr. Patterson has repeatedly failed to protect my rights, even after being made aware of these jurisdictional and procedural violations. His actions (and inactions) violate the following **Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act provisions**:

* **Rule 1.1** – Failure to perform legal services with competence.

* **Rule 1.3** – Failure to act with reasonable diligence and zeal.

* **Rule 1.6 & 1.9** – Failure to protect client confidentiality and potential misuse of privileged information.

* **Rule 3.3** – Allowing the court to be misled by omission or failure to correct false premises.

* **Rule 8.4(c)** – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

* **Business & Professions Code §6068(a)** – Duty to support the Constitution and laws of California and the United States.

* **§6068(d)** – Duty to represent the client with candor and honesty and never seek to mislead the court.

---

### **Complicity in Rights Violations and Systemic Suppression**

Rather than advocate for dismissal or challenge the court’s lack of jurisdiction, Mr. Patterson has **attempted to steer the case toward re-evaluation and trial**, compounding the original defect instead of correcting the record. He has refused to support my efforts to preserve critical issues for appeal and has **actively ignored repeated requests** to seek redress for the foundational due process violations.

This creates the appearance that Mr. Patterson is more aligned with judicial expediency than with my defense—a serious breach of fiduciary duty. His behavior has effectively made him a **passive agent of systemic suppression**, using the authority of his role to neutralize, rather than defend, my position.

Further compounding this, the unauthorized evaluation disclosed **privileged religious communications** to Dr. D’Ingillo. These were later weaponized against me without my consent. If Mr. Patterson cannot produce a **signed waiver of confidentiality or consent** to that disclosure, this indicates **clear misconduct, ethical breach, and possibly a criminal violation of privacy protections.**

---

### **Resulting Harm**

Due to this unlawful sequence:

* I was **deprived of my right to vote** during the **November 5, 2024, federal election** while unlawfully hospitalized.

* I was denied my **right to a speedy trial** as my case remains suspended on a foundation built entirely on an invalid, unauthorized evaluation.

* I am now too intimidated to return to court for fear of being **further retaliated against** through weaponized mental health processes.

Mr. Patterson has made no effort to correct the record or protect me from further harm, despite the glaring legal defects and irreparable prejudice caused by this misconduct.

---

### **Call for State Bar Investigation and Disciplinary Action**

This case raises urgent concerns that go to the heart of public trust in court-appointed counsel. Mr. Patterson’s role in facilitating this constitutional and procedural miscarriage of justice **demands an immediate ethics investigation** and potential disciplinary action, including possible **disbarment** if the findings show willful complicity or negligence.

I ask the State Bar to:

1. Determine whether Mr. Patterson knowingly relied on or failed to object to an evaluation conducted without court order.

2. Investigate whether he can produce documentation of a court order or signed consent related to the PC 730 evaluation.

3. Review his case conduct for evidence of suppression, collusion, or obstruction that undermined my ability to preserve critical issues for review or defense.

---

### **Final Plea for Accountability**

As a defendant still trapped in a procedurally defective process, the State Bar is my only remaining avenue for **meaningful accountability**. This complaint is not only about attorney misconduct—it is about restoring public confidence in our legal system and ensuring that no defendant can be deprived of liberty without due process, lawful jurisdiction, and ethical legal representation.

Please contact me for supporting documentation or further clarification. I trust you will pursue this matter with the seriousness it warrants.

---

Complaint Against Sharon Ransom, Prosecutor in Hollywood Mental Health Court

**Re: Prosecutorial Misconduct, Brady Violation, Use of Jurisdictionally Void Competency Evidence, and Complicity in Due Process Violations**

Dear State Bar,

This complaint concerns **Sharon Ransom**, who served as the prosecuting attorney in **Hollywood Mental Health Court** in my pending criminal matter. Ms. Ransom knowingly relied on a jurisdictionally void Penal Code § 730 competency evaluation that was conducted **without any court order** or legal authority. Her decision to use this inadmissible evidence to advocate for my unlawful commitment to a state hospital represents a **gross abuse of prosecutorial power**, a **violation of Brady**, and a **failure to uphold the rule of law** within a highly sensitive and constitutionally protected judicial context.

---

### **Background: Weaponized Evaluation Without Jurisdiction**

Two evaluations were conducted on **January 5 and January 18, 2024**, by Dr. D’Ingillo, under the appearance of a PC § 730 mental competency assessment. However, the court did **not declare a doubt** or issue any order authorizing such an evaluation until **February 14, 2024**—**over a month after the assessments had already been completed**.

On that same date, the court:

* **Retroactively ordered** the already-completed assessment;

* **Suspended criminal proceedings** based on that report;

* **Transferred jurisdiction to Hollywood Mental Health Court**—where Sharon Ransom served as the prosecuting attorney.

This minute order **could not legalize** or sanitize the unlawful nature of the evaluations already conducted without authority. Yet Ms. Ransom, fully aware of the retroactive nature of the court’s order and the timeline of events, **used the tainted evaluation as the basis to argue for a finding of incompetence and my involuntary commitment.**

---

### **Violations Committed by Sharon Ransom**

**1. Brady Violation (Suppression of Material Exculpatory Information)**

Ms. Ransom had a legal and ethical obligation under *Brady v. Maryland* to disclose and acknowledge that the evaluation she relied upon lacked legal authorization. Instead, she remained silent while the court retroactively attempted to validate the assessment, concealing from the record that its foundation was **inadmissible and constitutionally infirm**. This suppression directly impacted my liberty and right to challenge the legal basis for the proceeding.

**2. Knowingly Relying on Inadmissible Evidence**

The PC 730 report by Dr. D’Ingillo was arranged by court-appointed defense counsel **without a court order**. Ms. Ransom relied on this "fruit of the poisonous tree" to justify my **involuntary psychiatric commitment from October 29 to December 26, 2024**, violating both due process and my fundamental rights.

A judge may not "ratify" or "legalize" evidence that was unlawfully obtained. Ms. Ransom’s prosecution strategy was based entirely on this unlawful foundation—demonstrating either willful misconduct or reckless disregard for the truth and admissibility standards.

**3. Enabling Judicial Misconduct and Entrapment Through Collusion**

By treating the evaluation as valid despite its clear procedural illegality, and failing to disclose the jurisdictional defect, Ms. Ransom’s actions **aligned with the failures of court-appointed defense counsel**, who arranged the unauthorized evaluation and later refused to correct the record. The synchronized silence between prosecution and defense implies **collusion** to sidestep constitutional safeguards and remove judicial scrutiny.

This convergence of errors and omissions constitutes **systemic entrapment**: the prosecution used inadmissible evidence; the court used that evidence to commit; and the defense failed to object, protect, or preserve the issue for appeal. Ms. Ransom's participation makes her directly complicit.

---

### **Impact on the Case and My Constitutional Rights**

Ms. Ransom’s misconduct caused or contributed to the following violations:

* **Unlawful commitment** to a state hospital, with loss of voting rights (during the **November 5, 2024, federal election**);

* **Denial of a speedy trial**, due to proceedings suspended on a void foundation;

* Ongoing **due process deprivations**, as the record remains uncorrected;

* Denial of **meaningful adversarial proceedings**, since both prosecution and defense acted outside lawful bounds.

These failures have not been corrected because court-appointed defense attorneys (including Vernon Patterson and Danielle Daroca-Bell) have refused to acknowledge the jurisdictional defect, allowed the court’s unlawful foundation to stand, and prevented the exposure of the prosecution's misconduct.

---

### **Applicable Violations of California Law and Ethics Rules**

Ms. Ransom’s conduct violates multiple provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act, including:

* **Rule 3.8(a)-(d)**: Prosecutor’s duty to refrain from prosecuting without probable cause and to disclose all evidence favorable to the defense;

* **Rule 1.1 (Competence)** and **1.3 (Diligence)**;

* **Rule 3.3**: Duty of candor toward the tribunal;

* **Rule 8.4(c)**: Misconduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation;

* **Business & Professions Code § 6068(a), (d), (h)**: Duty to uphold the law, maintain truth, and preserve clients’ and defendants’ rights.

---

### **Request for State Bar Investigation**

I respectfully request that the State Bar:

1. Investigate whether Sharon Ransom knowingly used an inadmissible competency evaluation to justify a judicial finding of incompetence;

2. Determine whether she intentionally or negligently failed to disclose to the court and defense that the evidence was jurisdictionally void;

3. Assess whether her conduct reflects collusion with court-appointed counsel and/or the court itself;

4. Investigate whether she participated in suppressing this matter from appellate review and public accountability.

---

### **Conclusion and Call to Action**

This complaint does not arise from a tactical disagreement—it arises from **a breakdown of justice**. Sharon Ransom helped carry out a prosecution strategy rooted in unlawful evidence and maintained its legitimacy through concealment and misrepresentation. Her actions contributed to **a systemic betrayal of the Constitution** and enabled the court to deprive me of liberty, agency, and civil rights with no lawful foundation.

**The State Bar must intervene.** If prosecutors can rely on evaluations conducted without judicial authority and face no consequences, there is no rule of law. Your investigation is not only necessary for my defense—it is essential for preserving the ethical boundaries of mental health prosecution in California courts.