---
1. Contextual Summary
Following the ex parte court order appointing Dr. Jack Rothberg on May 14, 2025 (
Exhibit A-5), Deputy Public Defender Vernon L. Patterson (#163816) instructs Defendant Michael Taylor to contact Dr. Rothberg directly to schedule a psychiatric evaluation—an action which violates both standard legal protocol and the attorney’s own professional duty to facilitate such processes on behalf of his client.
This colloquy is pivotal because:
It reveals a continued refusal by Patterson to engage with Taylor’s core jurisdictional objections,
It documents Patterson’s abdication of procedural responsibility,
And it displays clear coercive intent—pressuring Taylor to participate in a psychiatric evaluation rooted in a still-unresolved fraudulent assessment (D’Ingillo).
The Defendant makes it clear that the court order for Rothberg is meaningless unless the prior fraud is corrected, thereby upholding a fundamental constitutional point: jurisdiction obtained by fraud is void ab initio (People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745).
---
2. Verbatim Transcript
Date: May 15, 2025
Exhibit ID: A-6
Participants:
Michael Taylor (Defendant)
Vernon Patterson (#163816, Deputy Public Defender)
---
Vernon Patterson:
Please contact Dr. Jack Rothberg at (323) 857-8000 to setup an appointment. Thank you.
---
Michael Taylor:
Why do I have to set an appointment? Are you not my lawyer? The court has committed fraud. You were falsely appointed to my case based on jurisdiction Judge Kaye never had. If you can't prove otherwise, you need to stop coercing me. Do you understand? Like I'm gonna let you misrepresent me to a judge who knows what you're doing, again. The legal authority of this court is in question, and any non-cooperation from you is a clear sign of conspiracy.
---
Vernon Patterson:
Just make the appointment and talk with him.
---
Michael Taylor:
Answer my questions first. I will absolutely not be calling any doctors, Mr. Patterson. Why would Judge Carter sign a court order for an evaluation if he doesn't care one never existed that sent me to the state hospital?
---
Vernon Patterson:
(no response)
---
3. Legal Analysis and Evidentiary Commentary
This exchange encapsulates a core breakdown in attorney-client function, along with evidence of ongoing coercive psychiatric practices:
🔸 Failure of Legal Duty:
Patterson's refusal to:
Respond to jurisdictional objections,
Provide proof of lawful appointment,
Clarify the authority under which Taylor was previously evaluated and committed,
violates the California Rules of Professional Conduct, including:
Rule 1.1 — Competence
Rule 1.3 — Diligence
Rule 2.1 — Advisor Duty (including moral and legal factors)
Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal
🔸 Misplaced Burden on Defendant:
By telling Taylor to “call the doctor,” Patterson:
Abdicates the duty to coordinate legal processes under PC § 1369 and PC § 730,
Treats the defendant as a pro se participant while denying him the agency of record development or legal standing to object,
Compels compliance in a procedure that itself arises from fraudulent foundations, violating Pate v. Robinson and People v. Hale.
🔸 Jurisdictional Void:
Taylor’s response is not rhetorical—it is legally precise:
> “You were falsely appointed to my case based on jurisdiction Judge Kaye never had.”
This is supported by:
The absence of a court order or PACE form for the prior (D’Ingillo) competency evaluation,
A transfer of judicial control (from Clover to Kaye to Carter) without legitimate predicate authority,
California and federal precedent that holds jurisdiction based on fraud or lack of due process is void, not merely voidable.
---
4. Malicious Continuity in Psychiatric Weaponization
This exhibit is the direct follow-through of the threat documented in
Exhibit A-4 and the court’s ex parte maneuver in
Exhibit A-5.
Patterson:
Knew Taylor had objected to the Rothberg appointment,
Knew Taylor's previous hospitalization was grounded in fraud,
Knew Taylor had repeatedly requested jurisdictional correction in open court,
And yet continued to press forward—not to defend, but to silence and discredit his client through another evaluation.
This is psychiatric coercion in the service of procedural laundering, wherein the system doubles down on illegality instead of correcting its record.
---
5. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Vernon Patterson:
Demonstrates coercive neutrality—he speaks as if the process is routine, but in fact, is actively collapsing his client's rights.
His short, dismissive answers display emotional disinterest and legal disengagement—markers of institutional abandonment.
His refusal to respond at all to Taylor’s final question suggests intent to suppress the very issue at the heart of the fraud.
Michael Taylor:
Exhibits rational cognition, logical progression, and accurate jurisdictional reasoning.
His refusal to comply is not defiance, but a demand for lawful clarity, which he has been asking for consistently over months.
His emotional tone reflects psychological trauma rooted in previous illegal confinement, and his resolve to resist coercion is protective, not pathological.
---
6. Public Interest Commentary
In this brief but damning exchange, we witness the full weaponization of silence by an officer of the court.
Taylor raises urgent constitutional challenges. He demands evidence. He asserts jurisdictional logic. He calls out structural fraud.
And Vernon Patterson answers with:
> “Just make the appointment and talk with him.”
This isn’t just ineffective assistance of counsel. It’s complicity.
Every judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney in California should read this transcript. Because the only thing more dangerous than fraud in a courtroom is when the lawyer you're assigned to protect you is the one helping cover it up.
---
7. Credibility Links & Citations
📚 Legal References:
.jpg "Exhibit A-6: Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge")
Comments
Post a Comment