---
1. Editorial Context Summary
In this extended colloquy dated May 13, 2025, Defendant Michael Taylor confronts Deputy Public Defender Vernon Patterson (#165016) over a critical discrepancy: the alleged lack of a valid PACE form or court order authorizing Dr. D’Ingillo’s competency assessment—a procedure that previously led to involuntary hospitalization and suspension of proceedings. Taylor points out that the PACE form identifies a different doctor (Dr. Camy Kingston) and that no documentation exists supporting the court’s authorization of D’Ingillo's involvement.
Patterson refuses to acknowledge the constitutional weight of this discrepancy, dismissing Taylor’s objections as irrelevant to the pending trial. Despite admitting some statements by the doctor “may seem…inaccurate,” Patterson avoids open-court record development, instead proposing a new evaluation by Dr. Rothberg—without first resolving the procedural violations Taylor raises. The exchange highlights an escalating crisis: Patterson is attempting to move forward with trial preparation and psychiatric review on the assumption of restored jurisdiction, while Taylor argues—correctly—that no valid restoration of jurisdiction can occur absent lawful initiation.
---
2. Full Verbatim Transcript
Date: May 13, 2025
Exhibit ID: A-4
Participants:
Michael Taylor (Defendant)
Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)
---
Michael Taylor:
Pace form was after tha evaluation and does not list Dr. D'Ingillo, but Dr. Camy Kingston. Explain this please.
Vernon Patterson:
I don’t know anything about it. But, it has nothing to do with the pending trial. I think the court told you on the last court [date] explained that there was an appointment order for Dr. D’Ingillo.
---
Michael Taylor:
No such thing exists. That's a false narrative. No PACE Form document was presented or submitted or proven during or after the Marsden hearing or at any point. How can you even file a pace form without an existing court order? So why are y’all playing with fraud here? You are coercing me to participate in an illegal proceeding, assuming trial is pending while this fact does not appropriately reflect the court record. Last year you told me all of my concerns will be addressed once competency is restored. Why are you refusing now?
Vernon Patterson:
I looked into it and I don’t see anything that needs to be addressed. Yes, the doctor said some things that on its face may seem to be inaccurate, but the bottom line is that you were found incompetent at that time. More than one doctor came to that conclusion. You were evaluated again and found competent to stand trial.
---
Michael Taylor:
You're telling me that no court order or PACE form existing doesn't need to be addressed in open court? Yes or no? C’mon now, it takes you forever in a day. Are you telling me that no court order or PACE form existing for Dr. D’Ingillo’s competency assessment doesn't need to be addressed in open court? Yes or no? Yes or no? How can I be “found” incompetent before doubt was declared?
Vernon Patterson:
I don’t know, but I’m scheduling an appointment for you to meet with Dr. Rothberg.
---
Michael Taylor:
So you are actively conspiring against me while suppressing evidence of constitutional rights violations? You’re off tha rails, Mr. Patterson. Absolutely reckless and criminal. Apparently, you're tha one who needs tha psych eval. You seem to misunderstand that you're supposed to defend me, not the court. You don't understand the role you play in the courtroom and you are not assisting your client in a reasonable way that would help him win his case. This case, Mr. Patterson, will be the case that defines your entire legal career. I find it absolutely laughable that you still think there is legal ground for prosecution here. Of course that means you are putting my life and case in danger. That's not lost on me.
Vernon Patterson:
No, I want to make sure that you are competent to stand trial. I believe that you have triable issues. But I’m worried by your endless rants on issues that have no bearing on guilt or innocence. A new evaluation from a doctor will ease my concerns over your competency. I will give you the address once the judge has signed the order.
---
Michael Taylor:
Negative. No court order exists for Dr. D’Ingillo’s assessment because it contains my religious beliefs. I will be filing for injunctive relief in federal court until a court order and/or PACE form for Dr. D’Ingillo’s assessment is verified. I’m not going to be participating until the court can re-establish jurisdiction after D’Ingillo’s assessment is scrutinized. If you think I'm going to trial without my concerns being addressed on court record, you got life quite fucked up! Judge Kaye was never supposed to accept jurisdictional transfer without a lawful basis for the assessment. Therefore, you were never supposed to be appointed to my case. Of course, if these facts reflected the record, the criminal charges would be compromised. Seeing that these facts haven't been addressed as you said you would do, no other form of representation will be accepted or tolerated. I wholeheartedly reject your denial of effective assistance of counsel. All of a sudden your concerns trump my concerns? How is that? No court order means no legal authority. If I’m competent enough to know a court order is required for a competency assessment, I think I’m very much competent to stand trial. Is it a fair trial though? That’s the question. Just a trial itself doesn’t satisfy due process. Fairness is a legal entitlement.
Vernon Patterson:
It’s not for me to say. I have concerns and the doctor will address them.
---
3. Legal Analysis and Evidentiary Commentary
This colloquy evidences multiple constitutional and procedural violations implicating due process, fair trial rights, and ineffective assistance of counsel:
🔸 Unlawful Evaluation Process:
Taylor accurately notes that a PACE form (Psychiatric Assessment Court Evaluation) is typically required to initiate a mental health evaluation under California law. If it lists a different evaluator (Dr. Kingston) and post-dates the actual assessment by Dr. D’Ingillo, this suggests the assessment was retroactively “papered over”—an act consistent with fraud upon the court.
Under California Penal Code § 1368.1 and § 730, a court must first declare a doubt and issue an order before such evaluations are lawful. The failure to do so invalidates the process.
🔸 Patterson’s Dereliction of Duty:
By admitting he doesn’t know the facts and yet insists there is “nothing to address,” Patterson is willfully ignoring material constitutional violations, meeting the Strickland v. Washington threshold for ineffective assistance.
His strategy to circumvent scrutiny by initiating a new psychiatric evaluation (with Dr. Rothberg) compounds the injury by attempting to overwrite an unaddressed, unlawful evaluation with another under similarly suspect authority.
🔸 Jurisdictional Breakdown:
Taylor is correct that jurisdiction cannot lawfully transfer between judicial departments or stages of prosecution if the initiating mental health evaluation lacked legal authority.
As Taylor states, "No Court Order means No legal authority." This is not rhetorical. It is legally dispositive under Pate v. Robinson and California constitutional guarantees of due process (Cal. Const. art. I, § 7).
---
4. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Vernon Patterson:
Repeatedly minimizes or refuses to process critical facts that undermine court legitimacy, reflecting denial-based coping mechanisms and potentially complicity via omission.
His language (“rants,” “nothing to address”) demonstrates emotional distancing and pejorative framing of a client asserting valid legal objections—classic markers of institutional gaslighting.
Obsession with defendant’s “competency” despite his legal fluency may reflect weaponized psychiatry: a tendency to reframe legal conflict as mental instability to justify coercive measures.
Michael Taylor:
Consistently presents facts, legal citations, and procedural challenges in a coherent and organized fashion. These are not “rants” but well-structured defensive legal assertions.
His reference to filing for injunctive relief in federal court demonstrates a functional understanding of litigation strategy and jurisdictional remedies.
The emotional escalations are contextually proportional to the stakes: illegal psychiatric evaluation, threatened trial without fair process, and denied access to open-court record correction.
---
5. Public Interest Commentary
This conversation should disturb every citizen who believes in the promise of a fair trial. When a defendant points out that no court order exists for the psychiatric evaluation used to suspend their rights—and their own lawyer calls that a “non-issue”—we have entered the domain of state-licensed injustice.
Taylor’s words here are not symptomatic of instability. They are an indictment of the court’s fraudulent procedures and the failure of his own defender to challenge them. That a new evaluation is being scheduled without resolving the previous one reveals a system more concerned with appearances than law.
ThaWilsonBlock Magazine publishes this record to document what state courts suppress: the conscious and systematic erasure of due process rights behind sealed doors, misused forms, and complicit defenders.
---
6. Credibility Links & Citations
📚 Legal References:
.jpg "Exhibit A-4: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.1: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.2: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.3: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.4: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.5: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.6: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.7: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.8: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
.jpg "Exhibit A-4.9: Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam")
Comments
Post a Comment