🔷 EXHIBIT A-3: May 12, 2025 — Counsel Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue”
---
1. Editorial Context Summary
On May 12, 2025, Defendant Michael Taylor directly confronted court-appointed attorney Vernon Patterson (#165016) with a grave due process violation: his involuntary commitment to a California state hospital based on a non-existent court order. Taylor’s statement references a fraudulent Penal Code § 730 competency assessment that led to confinement without judicial authorization—an act that legally constitutes false imprisonment under color of law.
Rather than investigate or challenge the underlying facts, Patterson bluntly responds:
> “I call it a non issue. The court told you the same thing the last time we were in court.”
Over the course of this exchange, Taylor presses the constitutional necessity of creating an open-court record to challenge procedural violations, only to encounter a defense strategy entirely reliant on secrecy under Marsden proceedings, where transcripts are sealed. By invoking “the judge’s decision” as justification for suppressing this misconduct, Patterson collapses the adversarial role of defense counsel into the machinery of institutional cover-up.
---
2. Full Verbatim Transcript
Date: May 12, 2025
Exhibit ID: A-3
Participants:
Michael Taylor (Defendant)
Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)
---
Michael Taylor:
I told you there was no court order for that assessment, and it resulted in me being committed to a state hospital, only for it to be true that no court order ever existed. What do you call that, Mr. Patterson?
Vernon Patterson:
I call it a non issue. The court told you the same thing the last time we were in court.
---
Michael Taylor:
It would be a different response in open court. What do you have to say to that?
Vernon Patterson:
It doesn’t make a difference if it’s in open court or not. There is a transcript of what was said. Any court that reviews this case will have access to it.
---
Michael Taylor:
It's not an issue that should be suppressed from any party.
Vernon Patterson:
It’s the judge’s decision. Also, since it was raised in a Marsden proceeding the law requires them to be sealed. That is why the courtroom was closed for the motion.
---
Michael Taylor:
This issue must reflect public record. It's unethical and potentially illegal for a court to cover up their own misconduct. What would compel a judge to ignore such an intrusion? Even if it is the judge's decision, that doesn't justify you failing by refusal to address it in open court. Why is making a timely and appropriate record of violations exclusively through Marsden hearings? Why can't I address these issues without having to request lawyer replacement?
Vernon Patterson:
(no response)
---
3. Legal Analysis and Evidentiary Commentary
This exchange is a primary exhibit of systemic judicial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, exposing how sealed Marsden hearings are misused to suppress open-court challenges to fraud upon the court. Taylor’s alleged involuntary hospitalization under Penal Code §§ 1368, 1370, and 730, in the absence of a signed order, is not only unlawful—it violates California constitutional due process rights (Art. I, § 7), and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Key Legal Issues:
Illegal Psychiatric Commitment: If Taylor was committed without a court order, his confinement constitutes false imprisonment and a violation of California Penal Code § 1368(b) and § 730, which require a valid judicial finding of incompetence and a written order for examination or commitment.
Defense Counsel Collusion or Abdication: By calling a known due process violation a “non issue,” Patterson displays gross professional negligence under Strickland v. Washington (1984) and violates:
Rule 1.1 (Competence)
Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal)
Rule 1.3 (Diligence) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
Sealing of Violations via Marsden: The exclusive use of Marsden hearings to raise serious misconduct isolates the defendant from public scrutiny and appellate record development. The law does require confidentiality, but not the exclusivity of such forums for challenging violations. Taylor’s question—“Why can’t I address these issues without having to request lawyer replacement?”—exposes the structural abuse of Marsden proceedings as a silencing tool.
Lack of Rebuttal as Admission: Patterson’s final silence after being confronted with the ethical illegitimacy of suppressing due process violations may be interpreted as tacit admission, or at minimum, evidence of dereliction of duty.
---
4. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Vernon Patterson:
By labeling a documented illegal psychiatric commitment as a “non issue,” Patterson exhibits institutional dissociation—a psychological distancing from constitutional obligation in favor of administrative convenience.
His reliance on “the judge’s decision” reveals a learned helplessness or co-dependent identity with the court, rather than independent legal judgment.
His use of Marsden secrecy reflects cognitive avoidance behavior—a defense mechanism that avoids confronting structural wrongdoing by placing blame on procedural limitations.
Michael Taylor:
Taylor displays continued legal lucidity and emotional coherence under severe psychological duress. His insistence on public record reflects an advanced understanding of strategic litigation posture.
Taylor’s escalating frustration is proportionate to the institutional indifference he faces. His questioning of the ethics behind courtroom secrecy is a rational assertion of the right to transparency, not a symptom of paranoia or instability.
The clarity with which he separates judicial misconduct from defense counsel’s obligation to object supports a competence narrative that contradicts any mental health allegations used to suspend proceedings.
---
5. Public Interest Commentary
This exchange captures a textbook abuse of legal process, where violations that would normally trigger judicial inquiry are instead sealed and minimized. That a man was allegedly sent to a state hospital without lawful authority, and that this fact is treated as a "non-issue" by his court-appointed lawyer, is a public emergency—not a private inconvenience.
What we see here is a court system leveraging Marsden confidentiality to institutionalize impunity—preventing the public, oversight bodies, and even the appellate record from seeing what Taylor calls out plainly: a cover-up of judicial misconduct. The fact that he can articulate this while under legal pressure further undermines the validity of any claim that he was incompetent.
This isn't a client meltdown. This is documented abuse.
---
6. Credibility Links & Citations
📚 Legal References:
.jpg "Exhibit A-3: Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue”")
Comments
Post a Comment