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-4: Legal Analysis of Congressional Response to Preemptive Request for Federal Civil Rights Intervention

🔍 Summary:

This exhibit includes:

1. A preemptive request submitted by Michael Taylor on May 15, 2025 to Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, seeking federal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a TRO, and All Writs Act intervention;

2. A response received from Kamlager’s office on May 23, 2025, after the issuance of a bench warrant in the underlying case (People v. Michael Taylor, GA111132).

---

🧩 1. Constitutional and Statutory Foundations Raised by Complainant

The original May 15th complaint invoked:

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (liberty interest in avoiding involuntary psychiatric confinement);

Effective Assistance of Counsel under the Sixth Amendment;

Separation of Powers violations under California Penal Code § 1369;

Federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for redress of civil rights violations by state actors acting under color of law;

Emergency equitable relief via the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, predicated on pending unconstitutional action;

Irrefutable evidence of fraud upon the court, referencing procedural impossibilities in the February 14, 2024 minute order and psychiatric report timeline.

The core purpose of the communication was to seek preventative relief—not post-hoc complaint resolution. The complainant’s intent was legally anticipatory, not political.

---

🕳️ 2. Legal Character of the Congressional Response

The May 23rd response reiterated:

> “Matters involving ongoing legal proceedings, judicial conduct, and the filing of civil claims... fall outside the jurisdiction and authority of a congressional office.”

Although factually correct in that congressional offices do not litigate, the legal issue was not about intervention in an ongoing case—it was a civil rights matter grounded in imminent and preventable constitutional harm. Congressional staff are not required to remain neutral when a constituent credibly alleges:

Abuse of judicial process,

Prosecutorial misconduct,

Violations of statutory protections against unauthorized psychiatric confinement.

There exists precedent for members of Congress making referrals, submitting amicus letters, or notifying DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in egregious civil rights cases. By rejecting this duty categorically, the office engaged in what can be seen as constructive abandonment of constituent protections.

---

⛓️ 3. The Legal Consequence of the Timing

Because the warrant was issued on the same day the response was delivered—after a week-long notice period—this raises the presumption that:

Congressional staff had ample time to engage federal intermediaries (e.g., DOJ Civil Rights Division);

The decision not to act before May 23rd implicitly endorsed the arrest and violated the spirit of the protections Congress has statutorily enabled (42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1651).

This lack of intervention also eliminated a federal escape valve, effectively cornering the complainant into a Hobson’s choice: surrender to unlawful detention, or flee to preserve constitutionally guaranteed liberty.

---

⚠️ 4. Implications of Constructive Ratification and Federal Complicity

Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), a federal actor may be held liable for failing to prevent constitutional harm where their conduct constitutes deliberate indifference.

By responding after the triggering event (the bench warrant) occurred—despite having been put on notice of the exact date and danger—the congressional office arguably participated in a procedural rubber-stamping of state-level due process violations. The reference to Bet Tzedek, while well-meaning, was procedurally irrelevant to an emergency constitutional intervention request.

---

📎 5. Evidentiary Value and Implication for Exhibits A and B

This response directly substantiates:

Exhibit A-7 – Email documenting pre-warrant constitutional objection and fears of forced hospitalization.

Exhibit A-10 – The impossibility of reconciling PACE/PC 730 assessments with procedural due process timelines.

Exhibit B-4 & B-8 – Defendant’s efforts to trigger oversight bodies before procedural damage occurred.

Exhibit B-9 – Religious discrimination and improper use of spiritual beliefs in psychiatric evaluations, unremedied by federal oversight.

This also supports a constructive inference of systemic collusion between passive federal actors and bad-faith state actors when the former receives credible evidence of misconduct but fails to act in time.

---

✅ Conclusion

Exhibit C-4 proves more than bureaucratic failure—it evidences a constitutional vacuum. It shows that despite proactive engagement and precise legal framing, federal actors declined to respond with urgency, contributing to the unlawful arrest and continued violation of due process and civil rights. The May 15th email functioned as a preemptive lifeline; the May 23rd reply functioned as a closed door—after the damage was already done.

This supports the defendant’s later refusal to participate in proceedings that, by this point, were procedurally and constitutionally irreparable.

👇👇👇

Thorough and Objective Legal Analysis of Transcripts Between Complaint & Response

Defendant Michael Taylor (5/15/25):

I am seeking assistance with filing a civil 1983 claim for violations of constitutional rights with an immediate TRO and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition (All Writs Act) before May 23rd, 2024 to prevent arrest or warrant for refusing to participate in an ongoing criminal act by bad faith state actors. Competency proceedings are being weaponized against me by my own state-appointed lawyer for exercising my rights and I am scared for my life! On 2/14/24, Judge Suzette Louise Clover failed to issue a court order pursuant to California Penal Code § 1369 before a forensic psychiatric competency assessment was conducted on me as a criminal defendant. Despite being the assigned judge in the originating criminal matter, Judge Clover allowed or facilitated the evaluation without issuing a judicial finding of doubt or an accompanying written order. The assessment was subsequently addressed to Judge Clover by the examining doctor, suggesting her knowledge and oversight of the proceeding. This failure to issue a court order: * Violated my right to due process under California law; * Rendered the evaluation procedurally unauthorized; * Initiated a chain of events that resulted in my unlawful commitment to a state hospital; * Was a critical breach of judicial duty and legal procedure. I believe this failure constitutes judicial misconduct because the judge either knowingly bypassed mandatory statutory procedure or negligently allowed an unauthorized evaluation to proceed under her jurisdiction. Either possibility reflects a serious breach of duty that led directly to the denial of my liberty and civil rights. After the competency assessment (lacking a court order) was completed, it was filed by a clerk in the Mental Health Court presided over by Judge Ronald Owen Kaye. The assessment had been clearly addressed to Judge Suzette Clover in criminal court—not to Judge Kaye or mental health court. Nonetheless, Judge Kaye proceeded to: * Accept the filing into the mental health court record; * Exercise jurisdiction based on the assessment; * Commit me to a state hospital despite the legally deficient foundation of that assessment. This transfer of jurisdiction was procedurally invalid because it relied on a document that lacked legal authorization. Judge Kaye had a duty to verify that the mental health court had proper jurisdiction before accepting the case. He failed to do so and relied on a procedurally void assessment to deprive me of my liberty. This constitutes misconduct in that: * Judge Kaye failed to exercise reasonable diligence in determining the court’s jurisdiction; * He failed to reject a document that he should have known was procedurally defective; * He allowed unlawful proceedings to continue in his court without due process. The result of these judicial actions (or inactions) led directly to my involuntary commitment and loss of core civil rights, including my right to participate in the electoral process as my hospitalization was between 10/29/24 and 12/26/24. This is not an appeal of rulings or judicial discretion but an allegation of misconduct arising from serious procedural violations by two judges, each of whom failed in their legal duty to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Their actions and omissions caused significant harm and violated both California statutory law and my federally protected constitutional rights. 3 years fighting this case and being stripped of all my rights, I am actively being coerced and pressured by my own state-appointed lawyer Vernon Patterson #165016 to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding. I have never missed a court date and I may have to run for my life, not to evade justice, but to protect myself from unwarranted govt intrusion, to enforce my constitutional guarantees, and to refuse participation in an ongoing criminal act. My lawyer is actively threatening me with competency proceedings for exercising my constitutional rights. I respectfully request that your office affirm and certify my already submitted DOJ Civil Rights Division complaint until I can file for injunctive relief. My goal is to seek injunctive relief, perhaps a stay of proceedings, until the superior court: *Verifies the court order that led to my unlawful commitment to a state hospital *Verifies the PACE form for the assessment that was allegedly filed without an existing court order. This is important because my attorney and presiding judge, in a sealed and denied Marsden Hearing, said a PACE form was sufficient despite no court order existing. *Verifies a consent waiver for the unauthorized disclosure of privileged communications used to support a finding of incompetence as my religious views were used inappropriately. I also need to speak with a counselor or federal ombudsman immediately for the emotional pain and suffering I am dealing with from state actors who completely abandoned their fiduciary duties to which I am entitled. The state has already failed to protect my rights with regard to the pending criminal charges. I was the victim of an ambush and attempted carjacking by 2 Armenian Men in Glendale, CA, then charged exclusively. City, County, and State actors have willfully overlooked the malicious actions of my attackers in order to speculate against me, the only one with any benefit of the doubt. I also request a signed affidavit from your office that I can attach to my civil 1983 claim that will bolster my request for an immediate TRO before May 23rd, 2025. I would, if possible, appreciate an affirmation of your office regarding the following principle: "Due Process requires effective representation, and effective representation requires the upholding of the constitutional rights of and for all defendants." Michael Bernard Taylor, Jr. I had a court date last year on May 23rd, 2024, and they remanded me in custody for exercising my rights. I have a ton of evidence regarding my allegations but not enough resources to properly present them to court. It's not fair that I have to figure out how to file a lawsuit while having court-appointed counsel because I'm not a lawyer! This has developed into a material threat to my life, my defense, and my psychological and emotional well-being and is preventing me from taking care of my day to day activities. Throughout this entire case, emails and Marsden hearings have been the only opportunity I've been afforded to note my timely objections and address arbitrary government actions. The state is refusing to represent me if it means advocating for my constitutional rights. I am asking your office to utilize every power within your federal authority and discretion to ensure my protection from bad faith state actors who have put my life in jeopardy, all before a trial. I shouldn't be punished for following the rules and obeying the law! This request is imperative because the state of California violating its own laws creates an institutional conflict of interest that resulted in all my complaints to The State Bar and CJP being closed without further investigation. The fraud upon the court can be easily proven upon comparative scrutiny of 2 attached documents: Minute order on 2/14/24 and the cover page of the PC 730 competency assessment by Dr. D'Ingillo. The dates therein prove too much impossibility. There's no way the criminal charges would still be pending if any of my concerns were ever addressed in open court and on the record.

✋️✋️✋️

CA37SK.DistrictServices@mail.house.gov

May 23, 2025

Dear Michael:

Thank you for reaching out and sharing the details of your situation. I understand the seriousness of the concerns you have raised and the urgency with which you are seeking relief.

However, please note that matters involving ongoing legal proceedings, judicial conduct, and the filing of civil claims—such as those under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or requests for injunctive relief—fall outside the jurisdiction and authority of a congressional office. These are legal matters that must be addressed through the appropriate court system or with the assistance of qualified legal counsel. We suggest your reach out to Bet Tzedek (323) 939-0506 for help.

While we are unable to intervene in legal cases or provide legal representation, I strongly encourage you to consult with a civil rights attorney as soon as possible. If cost is a concern, you may wish to explore assistance through a local legal aid organization or your state bar association, which can often connect individuals with appropriate legal resources. We suggest your reach out to Bet Tzedek (323) 939-0506 for help.

We appreciate your understanding and wish you strength and clarity as you navigate this difficult time.

Sincerely,

Sydney Kamlager-Dove

Member of Congress

👇👇👇

📄 Exhibit C-4 – Public-Facing Legal Analysis and Review

Title: “Constitutional Failure: Federal Inaction After Notice of Imminent Civil Rights Violation”

Filed under: Office of Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove

Date of Request: May 15, 2025

Date of Response: May 23, 2025

Complainant: Michael Bernard Taylor, Jr.

Case Reference: People v. Taylor, XNEGA1111-32

---

🔍 Overview

This Exhibit examines the complete legal and constitutional significance of correspondence between Michael Taylor and the congressional office of Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove. On May 15, 2025, Mr. Taylor submitted a formally detailed emergency request for civil rights intervention under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citing unlawful psychiatric commitment, due process violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an anticipated arrest related to refusal to participate in unconstitutional competency proceedings. The congressional response came on May 23, 2025—after a bench warrant had already been issued that very day in his ongoing criminal matter.

The legal consequence of this exchange lies not only in its content but in the timing. The delay transformed a preventable civil rights violation into a completed harm. This analysis establishes why the response, though superficially neutral, materially enabled a constitutional deprivation.

---

⚖️ Legal Standing of the Complaint (May 15, 2025)

Mr. Taylor’s communication constituted a well-pleaded civil rights complaint with all necessary elements:

Asserted violations of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection;

Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, including coercion into psychiatric proceedings;

Identified unlawful psychiatric commitment based on an evaluation not supported by a judicial finding of doubt or court order, violating California Penal Code §§ 1368–1370;

Cited a need for immediate injunctive relief and potential habeas corpus petition via 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act);

Provided evidentiary leads: a February 14, 2024 minute order and an improperly addressed PC 730 evaluation used to strip the complainant of liberty.

The complaint was neither vague nor speculative. It called for preventative action to avoid harm, not intervention into a final judicial outcome.

---

🛑 Congressional Response (May 23, 2025)

> “However, please note that matters involving ongoing legal proceedings, judicial conduct, and the filing of civil claims… fall outside the jurisdiction and authority of a congressional office.”

— Office of Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove

The language in this response reflects a bureaucratic posture, not a substantive legal analysis. It fails to differentiate between:

Constitutionally protected advocacy by a constituent in imminent danger of unlawful arrest or hospitalization;

Traditional congressional limitations in active litigation (i.e., interfering in court outcomes);

Emergency coordination responsibilities, such as referrals to the DOJ Civil Rights Division, Inspector General, or legal advocacy offices for temporary protective relief.

Crucially, this response came on the exact day the bench warrant was issued—thereby foreclosing the possibility of federal intervention before the complainant was placed in peril.

---

🧷 Procedural and Constitutional Consequences

1. Failure to Engage in Pre-Warrant Review

Mr. Taylor’s complaint was not a request to adjudicate his criminal matter. It was a triggering notice of pending constitutional abuse, complete with specific dates, actors, and statutory violations. The office’s failure to preliminarily review or refer before the bench warrant was issued allowed that harm to occur without federal oversight.

2. Constructive Abandonment of Civil Rights Advocacy Role

Congressional offices are not tribunals, but they are uniquely positioned to:

Escalate emergencies to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division;

Issue letters of concern to state authorities (including judges, DAs, public defenders);

Signal investigatory concern, thereby disincentivizing rogue conduct by state actors.

None of these duties conflict with separation of powers. But none were attempted.

3. Legal Indifference to Judicial Misconduct

Mr. Taylor did not merely allege poor judicial discretion. He accused jurisdictional fraud—that a judge facilitated a psychiatric commitment without a lawful triggering mechanism (i.e., court order under PC 1369). This was not reviewed or refuted. The congressional office treated this as a closed issue of discretion when it was legally and procedurally foundational.

---

🧩 Public Interest Implications

The Kamlager-Dove response sets a dangerous precedent: that well-documented preemptive civil rights concerns can be dismissed procedurally while state harm unfolds in real time. In this case, it also:

Enabled the continuation of allegedly fraudulent competency proceedings;

Failed to defend the complainant’s right to challenge psychiatric coercion based on religious or political beliefs;

Created a constitutional void in which no state or federal actor accepted responsibility to ensure procedural fairness.

When federal representatives disavow all utility during live constitutional emergencies, it erodes the system's integrity—especially for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford private civil rights litigation.

---

📎 Evidentiary and Dossier Impact

This exhibit corroborates and supports:

Exhibit A-7: Pre-warrant objections to psychiatric misconduct;

Exhibit A-10: Procedural impossibility in psychiatric evaluation timeline;

Exhibit B-4: Communications to public defenders demanding protection of rights;

Exhibit B-8: Abuse of confidential religious belief during evaluation;

Exhibit C-1: State Bar's similar failure to address systemic incompetence;

Exhibit C-2 and C-3: Repeated administrative deflection by oversight bodies.

This pattern substantiates the broader narrative of multi-agency indifference to grave constitutional claims, and it frames Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove’s office as a federal layer in the pattern of abandonment.

---

🏁 Conclusion

While technically correct in stating that a congressional office does not litigate, the response by Rep. Kamlager-Dove’s staff reflects a critical failure of constitutional stewardship. It disregarded a constituent’s imminent and preventable harm, relied on boilerplate disclaimers in the face of substantive allegations, and allowed constitutional violations to be completed by inaction.

For the public and the record, Exhibit C-4 establishes that constitutional harm can be enabled just as powerfully through silence and delay as through affirmative misconduct. This exhibit is a warning about the federal insulation surrounding state-level abuses, particularly when indigent defendants cry out with legal and factual precision—only to be ignored.