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-6: ACLU of Southern California – Declination, Constructive Notice, and Failure of Mandated Reporting Duties

---

📌 Summary of Events

On May 18, 2025, and again on June 26, 2025, Michael Taylor submitted detailed complaints to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), citing imminent constitutional violations, judicial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and unlawful psychiatric proceedings conducted without proper court authorization.

Both the initial acknowledgment and final rejection letter from ACLU SoCal confirm:

They received and reviewed Mr. Taylor’s claims;

They determined not to intervene due to strategic prioritization and resource constraints;

They made no determination on the legal merits;

They provided no substantive referral, protective action, or discretionary notification to oversight authorities.

The second response specifically states that “an ACLU SoCal team member personally reviewed your request”, confirming that the intake was not dismissed automatically or unread. Despite being aware of active judicial misconduct and ongoing deprivation of constitutional rights, the ACLU declined to intervene or report the matter to oversight authorities.

---

🔎 Legal and Ethical Analysis

1. Legal Discretion to Decline Representation

The ACLU, as a private nonprofit legal advocacy organization, retains full discretion in choosing which matters to litigate or engage. Its refusal to offer legal assistance is not inherently unethical or illegal under current law. However, that discretion is not absolute—particularly once the organization becomes aware of credible, ongoing constitutional violations implicating bad-faith government actors.

2. Constructive Notice and Ethical Duties to Report

Once an ACLU staff member acknowledges that they reviewed claims involving:

Misuse of psychiatric commitment procedures (PC 1368/1370);

Failure of judicial officers to issue required orders;

Involuntary hospitalization based on unconstitutional legal process;

Coercion by state-appointed counsel and violation of religious rights under pretense of “competency”;

Institutional suppression of due process and equal protection rights by multiple state actors;

…then the ACLU cannot claim plausible deniability. This rises to constructive knowledge—triggering legal, ethical, and civic obligations, regardless of whether formal representation follows.

3. Mandated Reporting Responsibilities in Civil Rights Context

Even without formal representation, public interest legal organizations like the ACLU are expected to act in good faith when presented with verifiable rights violations. Though not held to the same codified standards as bar-licensed attorneys, the ACLU's functional role as a constitutional safeguard raises the standard of care.

Applicable standards include:

California Business & Professions Code § 6068(o) (reporting known misconduct by attorneys);

California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.3 (requiring attorneys to report misconduct implicating honesty or fitness to practice law);

Federal Civil Rights Compliance Directives (requiring awareness-based referrals under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107 and § 42.107);

ACLU’s own chartered mission of “defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country.”

By failing to alert any government oversight entity—including the State Bar, Commission on Judicial Performance, Department of Justice, or federal court monitors—the ACLU SoCal implicitly authorized further violations. This amounts to constructive ratification of institutional abuse through passive indifference.

---

🧩 Implication Across Dossier Exhibits

The ACLU's two-part declination is not merely bureaucratic—it structurally implicates Exhibits A-2 through A-6, and B-3, B-6, and B-9, all of which document the following:

The absence of a court order authorizing a competency evaluation (Ex. A-2);

Misuse of privileged information to fabricate psychiatric evidence (Ex. B-3);

Procedural impossibilities between minute orders and assessment dates (Ex. A-4, B-6);

Repeated refusal by appointed counsel to assert constitutional violations (Ex. A-5, B-9).

ACLU SoCal’s choice to remain silent in light of these claims, especially after confirming receipt and review, offers further confirmation that the entire institutional ecosystem knew or should have known of the deprivations unfolding. This exhibits a wider pattern of constitutional abandonment through structural evasion.

---

✅ Conclusion: Silence ≠ Neutrality

The ACLU of Southern California may have acted within its right to decline direct representation. However, once it acknowledged reviewing imminent constitutional violations involving criminal proceedings and unlawful psychiatric detention, its failure to initiate or recommend referral measures constitutes a moral and civic breach.

In doing so, ACLU SoCal:

Defaulted on its watchdog role in the face of systemic misconduct;

Missed a duty of care owed to an indigent complainant alleging abuse of court power;

Signaled to other institutions that such violations can go unchallenged even by the very organizations designed to oppose them.

> In the context of the Dossier, this makes Exhibit C-6 a critical linchpin:

❗ It confirms that no amount of public outreach, legal escalation, or documented harm is sufficient to compel institutional actors—even those dedicated to civil rights—to respond in time, unless external accountability is brought to bear.