Exhibit A-5 (5/14/25) [COURT ORDER] Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

🔷 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

THE VERNON PATTERSON DOSSIER EXHIBIT INDEX:

EXHIBITS A: COMMUNICATIONS

• Exhibit A-1 (4/8/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment
• Exhibit A-2 (5/8/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt
• Exhibit A-3 (5/12/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue”
• Exhibit A-4 (5/13/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam
• Exhibit A-5 (5/14/25): [COURT ORDER] Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud
• Exhibit A-6 (5/15/25): [SMS] Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge
• Exhibit A-7 (5/23/25): [SMS] Judge Michael Carter Leverages Executive Authority Despite Lacking Jurisdiction; Patterson Weaponizes Silence
• Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25): [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up
• Exhibit A-9 (6/3/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations
• Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process

EXHIBITS B: TRANSCRIPTS

• Exhibit B-1 (10/2/23) [SMS] Judge Suzette Clover Appoints Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo As Confidential Expert for Mental Health Diversion (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-2 (2/14/24) [EVALUATION] Unauthorized Competency Report Submitted in Violation of Court Order and Statutory Privileges (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-3 (2/14/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-4 (2/28/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Appearance Waived, New Judge Assigned, Competency Hearing Continued W/O Jurisdictional Clarity (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-5 (5/1/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Withholds Consent Pending Constitutional Challenge — Evaluation Aborted (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-6 (6/21/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Refuses Evaluation Until Prior Due Process Violation Is Cured — No Opinion Rendered (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-7 (8/30/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Involuntary Medication Order Recommended Solely on Records and Prior Contested Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-8 (8/30/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Judicial Authorization of Forced Medication, Voter Disqualification, and Broad HIPAA Disclosure Without Procedural Redress (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-9 (5/14/24) [COURT ORDER] Court Authorizes Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation at Defense Request Following Accusations of Constructive Abandonment and Due Process Violations (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

EXHIBITS C: REDRESS

• Exhibit C-1 (4.28.24) [COMPLAINT] Material Falsehoods & Constructive Ratification by The California State Bar (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-2 (3/20/24) CJP Complaint on Judge Clover (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-3 (3/18/25) [EMAIL] DSH Engages In Constructive Ratification of Fraud by Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• 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-5 (4/8/24) [EMAIL] The Cochran Firm Declines Representation; Mandatory Reporting Duties Still Implied (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• 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-7 (6/10/25) [EMAIL] Judicial Acknowledgment of Fraud Upon The Court By 2nd Appellate District Court of California (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-8 (6/15/25) [EMAIL] Trump's DOJ Endorses Constructive Judicial Misconduct That Originated Under Biden (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-9 (6/22/25) [EMAIL] Congresswoman Judy Chu Receives Formal Complaint of Fraud Upon The Court After DOJ Closed Complaint (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-10 (7/1/25) [LAWSUIT] California Attorney General Rob Bonta Violates Equal Protection of Defendant Michael Taylor (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)