🔷 EXHIBIT A-5: May 14, 2025 — Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud
---
1. Document Summary
Title: COURT ORDER EX PARTE
Date Filed: May 14, 2025
Judge: Hon. Michael D. Carter
Defense Counsel: Vernon L. Patterson (#163816)
Case No.: GA111132
Defendant: Michael Taylor
Appointed Expert: Dr. Jack Rothberg, M.D.
Address: 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (323) 857-8000
---
2. Verbatim Reproduction of the Court Order
> "CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – MAY 14 2025
THE LAW OFFICE OF VERNON L. PATTERSON
Vernon L. Patterson
530 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 625
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 567-0944
Bar #163816
Email: Patterson.1Law@gmail.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No.: GA111132
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL TAYLOR, Defendant
COURT ORDER EX PARTE
Date: MAY 14 2025
🔹 Order: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Jack Rothberg, M.D., 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 857-8000 is appointed to evaluate Mr. Michael Taylor.
🔹 Stipulation: Said expert is to make available all findings and reports to the defense only, to consult confidentially with defense counsel, Vernon L. Patterson, and to testify, if necessary, at trial or other pertinent proceedings in this case.
Judge of the Superior Court
MICHAEL D. CARTER, JUDGE"
---
3. Malicious Escalation of Psychiatric Weaponization
This ex parte appointment of Dr. Rothberg cannot be viewed in isolation. It constitutes the materialization of a threat Patterson made just 24 hours prior, during the May 13, 2025 colloquy (
Exhibit A-4), in which he:
1. Admitted no knowledge of the legal basis for Dr. D’Ingillo’s evaluation;
2. Acknowledged inaccuracies in the prior report but dismissed its relevance;
3. Refused to address due process violations in open court;
4. Threatened to initiate a new psychiatric evaluation based solely on his own unsubstantiated “concerns” about Taylor’s mental state.
Despite knowing that:
There was no court order for the prior D’Ingillo assessment;
The associated PACE form was either falsified or missing;
Taylor had been previously hospitalized based on a fraudulent process;
Patterson did not act to:
Vacate the defective evaluation,
Challenge the court’s reliance on it, or
Preserve Taylor’s rights under Pate v. Robinson and People v. Hale.
Instead, he executed a coercive defense maneuver cloaked in procedural formality: initiating a new psychiatric evaluation without Taylor’s consent and before the record was corrected.
> ⚠️ This is a textbook example of what legal scholars call “psychiatric weaponization”: the use of mental health processes as a litigation tactic to bypass factual innocence, due process, and jurisdictional defects.
This escalatory maneuver must be understood as:
A continuation of fraud upon the court;
An obstruction of the public record that Taylor has been demanding for months;
A strategic suppression of the original rights violation (i.e., the D’Ingillo assessment without court order), which Patterson seeks to bury under a fresh layer of pseudolegal legitimacy.
Patterson’s intent is transparent: to override Taylor’s jurisdictional objections by forcing a new diagnosis onto the record, thereby manufacturing the court’s power to proceed under false pretenses.
---
4. Legal Analysis
The appointment of Dr. Rothberg, on its face, appears to be for a defense-only consultation, not a formal PC § 730 or § 1369 evaluation. However, this nuance does not absolve the underlying constitutional injury. In fact, it deepens it.
🔸 Jurisdictional Evasion:
A new evaluation does not cure the prior defective one unless the original harm is publicly acknowledged and remedied.
Per People v. Marks (2003), even defense-only mental health strategies cannot be used to launder constitutional violations.
🔸 Procedural Subversion:
The sequence of events—denial, threat, execution—exposes Patterson’s tactical use of mental health law to subvert his client’s rights and deflect scrutiny.
Patterson invokes concerns about Taylor’s cognition, even as Taylor raises legally valid, fact-based challenges rooted in public record defects. This is abuse by gaslighting through legal process.
🔸 Continued Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Patterson’s actions violate his constitutional duty of loyalty to the client and his professional obligations under:
Rule 1.1 (Competence)
Rule 1.3 (Diligence)
Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal)
Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest)
---
5. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Vernon Patterson:
Displays malignant legal paternalism—imposing psychiatric review not to protect the client, but to suppress the client’s legal arguments.
His escalation reflects a coercive legal psychology: silencing dissent by turning it into diagnosis.
The ex parte nature of this filing reinforces a dominant-defensive role orientation, bypassing adversarial duties and treating Taylor as a subject of control, not representation.
Michael Taylor:
Predicted this exact maneuver. In
Exhibit A-4, he anticipated the appointment of a new doctor without record correction and explicitly rejected its legality.
His emphasis on due process, court order verification, and fair trial rights affirms a high level of constitutional cognition—directly contradicting any legitimate rationale for a psychiatric review.
His resistance is not paranoia—it is legal self-preservation in the face of a system enacting covert retaliation through psychiatric means.
---
6. Public Interest Commentary
This exhibit exposes a disturbing truth: psychiatric procedures can be turned into procedural weapons against defendants who question the legitimacy of the court.
Patterson’s behavior reveals a tactical use of mental health frameworks not to ensure justice—but to bury the evidence of earlier injustice.
Taylor never consented to the Rothberg evaluation, and it is being used to overwrite, not clarify, a record built on judicial fraud.
We publish this order to reveal what the courts suppress: how legal power can be silently reshaped through sealed rooms, unacknowledged violations, and ex parte orders that silence dissent by pathologizing it.
---
7. Credibility Links & Citations
📚 Legal References:
- Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668
- Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375
- People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197
- People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531
- California Penal Code §§ 1368, 1369, 1370, 730
- California Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 3.3
- California Constitution, Article I, § 7
- U.S. Constitution, Amendments V, VI, XIV
.jpg "Exhibit A-5: Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud")
Comments
Post a Comment