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-7: Judicial Notification of Record Defect and Anonymous Response by the Second Appellate District

---

📌 Overview

On June 10, 2025 at 12:42 AM, Defendant Michael Taylor submitted a formal, detailed complaint—styled as a “Zealous Demand for Sua Sponte Correction of the Record”—addressed to multiple California judicial authorities. The complaint outlined grave constitutional and procedural defects arising from an unauthorized Penal Code § 730 competency assessment that resulted in a loss of liberty, due process violations, and misrepresentation of official court records.

At 9:40 AM that same day, the Second Appellate District responded anonymously, offering no comment on the substance of the allegations and merely advising Mr. Taylor to use TrueFiling or physical mail to file a writ or notice of appeal. No individual name, title, or contact was included.

---

⚖️ Legal and Procedural Analysis

1. Substance of the Complaint (June 10, 2025)

Mr. Taylor’s complaint:

Cited the absence of a valid court order for a PC § 730 psychiatric evaluation relied upon to suspend criminal proceedings.

Identified judicial misfeasance by specific officers of the Superior Court of California.

Alleged Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations under both state and federal constitutional frameworks.

Named judicial actors (e.g., Judge Carter), medical evaluators, counsel (Vernon Patterson), and law enforcement agencies as implicated by the procedural breakdown.

Asserted that no valid jurisdiction existed for proceedings following the unauthorized assessment.

Demanded sua sponte correction of the official court record under the court’s own inherent authority.

This document was framed within the judicial canon of ethics, due process doctrine, and procedural equity, and requested formal acknowledgment, action, and correction.

2. Response from Court of Appeal (June 10, 2025, 9:40 AM)

The reply email:

Did not acknowledge the contents or legal assertions of the complaint.

Contained no identifying name or assignment of responsibility.

Directed the complainant to file through procedural channels (TrueFiling, USPS).

Explicitly stated: “No action will be taken regarding these emails.”

This was not a substantive ruling or formal denial—rather, it was a procedural deflection of jurisdiction without comment on legal defects raised.

---

🧩 Legal Implications and Inferences

A. Anonymous Deflection Avoids Oversight Responsibility

By refusing to provide a name, case number, or assign responsibility, the Second Appellate District:

Undermines transparency and traceability, both of which are essential for public confidence.

Circumvents Canon 2A of the California Code of Judicial Ethics: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Avoids direct administrative accountability—no officer of the court assumed or declined jurisdiction on record.

B. Constructive Notice Still Satisfied

Even without formal docketing, the transmission of a structured legal complaint to the Appellate Court’s official address constitutes constructive notice of alleged constitutional violations. By choosing not to address these concerns—even in a courtesy reply—the court arguably:

Ratified a defective trial court record by silence;

Increased the burden of judicial error on higher courts and oversight bodies;

Left intact a process tainted by color of law misuse.

C. Denial of Access and Self-Insulation

Although the court offered procedural instructions (filing a writ or notice of appeal), its refusal to address the substance implicates constructive denial of access to judicial review, especially when liberty interests and due process violations are at stake.

This further entrenches what Mr. Taylor has described as a system of judicial insulation, wherein:

> “The Court proceeded in willful ignorance, thereby insulating itself from meaningful review.”

---

📘 Broader Contextual and Strategic Importance

Exhibit C-7 connects directly with:

Exhibits A-2, A-4, and B-6, all of which establish that no valid court order existed for the psychiatric assessment;

Exhibit C-6, where the ACLU acknowledged intake but failed to act;

Exhibit B-9, where appointed counsel Vernon Patterson confirmed absence of a court order yet failed to object.

It also deepens the evidentiary narrative that no institution—judicial, legal, or oversight—took affirmative steps to halt or even acknowledge documented procedural fraud.

---

✅ Conclusion

The anonymous and dismissive email from the Second Appellate District, in response to a formally articulated constitutional complaint, demonstrates a broader systemic indifference to due process errors—even when clearly laid out in good faith by a pro se defendant facing ongoing rights deprivations.

This response:

Fails to discharge a duty of judicial stewardship;

Offers no dispute to the factual or legal claims raised;

Leaves intact the wrongful deprivation of liberty tied to a procedurally unauthorized assessment.

> In short, Exhibit C-7 evidences the silent complicity of the appellate judiciary—where process is emphasized over justice, and where unresolved constitutional defects are met not with remedy, but with redirection and anonymity.

👇👇👇

FULL TRANSCRIPT BETWEEN STATEMENT AND RESPONSE. FULL EMAIL THREAD AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. 

Me (Tuesday, June 10, 2025 12:42 AM):

Subject: JUDGE CARTER MUST CORRECT THE RECORD IMMEDIATELY + JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT CONFIRMED + NO COURT ORDER AND NO CONSENT WAIVER + BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COURT + ADMONISHING OF SUPERIOR COURT FOR INCURRING UNDUE LIABILITY TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES & EVALUAT...

ZEALOUS COMPLAINT DEMANDING SUA SPONTE CORRECTION OF THE RECORD BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO: The Honorable Presiding Officers of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; The California Judicial Council; The California State Senate Judiciary Committee; and All Relevant Oversight Authorities

FROM: Defendant, Michael Taylor, in propria persona**

RE: Unlawful PC § 730 Proceedings; Constructive Denial of Rights; Weaponization of Competency Process in Violation of Constitutional and Statutory Law

Let this document serve as a formal and zealous complaint and demand for immediate action by this Court sua sponte, pursuant to its inherent authority and fiduciary obligation to uphold due process and equal protection under the law.

As now conclusively evidenced, no valid court order was ever issued or entered authorizing the PC § 730 psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo—an assessment which the Court subsequently used to suspend proceedings and severely restrict the liberty interests of the undersigned Defendant.

This fact was affirmatively confirmed by Bar Panel Attorney Vernon Patterson, who has now explicitly acknowledged that no court order existed for said assessment. Yet, despite this irrefutable truth, the Court proceeded as if such order had been issued, and treated the report as presumptively valid, thus rendering its own record a judicial fiction built upon fraud, omission, and concealment.

SHAMEFUL IMPLICATION OF INNOCENT PARTIES THROUGH JUDICIAL MISFEASANCE

This Court has, through its own negligence or deliberate omission, unjustly and wrongfully implicated multiple officers of the court and public institutions, including:

Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo, who acted absent valid judicial appointment,

Dr. Phani Tumu and Dr. Kory Knapke, evaluators who operated within a false procedural framework,

The Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, under the authority of Ricardo Garcia,

Vernon Patterson, Bar Panel Attorney,

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which enforced unconstitutional directives,

And by extension, the County of Los Angeles and its taxpayers, who now bear the risk of litigation and public liability arising from this grievous abuse.

Each of these actors has been dragged into a web of impropriety entirely manufactured by this Court’s refusal to abide by its own judicial protocols. The Defendant affirms that all aforementioned parties were effectively placed in jeopardy and unduly implicated through this Court’s unlawful reliance on ex parte communications, sealed orders, and procedurally defective proceedings in direct violation of California Penal Code § 1368, California Evidence Code §§ 730 and 952, and well-settled case law guaranteeing the Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

THE COURT’S WEAPONIZATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT

What this Court has done, in effect, is to weaponize the Sixth Amendment—an amendment designed to ensure fairness in criminal prosecutions—by appointing ineffectual or silent counsel who refuse to place dispositive evidence into the record. This allowed the Court to proceed in willful ignorance, thereby insulating itself from meaningful review, while depriving the Defendant of effective representation, adjudication on the merits, and a legitimate opportunity to challenge the facts upon which he is being prosecuted and punished.

This procedural ambush has not only subjected the Defendant to unlawful institutionalization, stigma, and isolation, but has deepened the psychological injuries he already bears from being raised in California’s foster care system, including: childhood trauma, absence of paternal identity, long-term medication, and deprivation of social and emotional development.

THE COURT’S UNLAWFUL COERCION

This Court, in proceeding without lawful order and under color of law, has effectively held the Defendant’s constitutional rights hostage, subjecting him to coercive threat of arrest, intimidation, and prolonged mental stress unless he submits to a process grounded not in law, but in judicial expediency. That this Court has now used the absence of advocacy as a shield against liability is not merely improper—it is malicious, negligent, and an act of tyranny under the guise of justice.

DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

This Court—and specifically Judge Carter of Department F in Pasadena—has committed acts that fall within the very definitions of misfeasance and abuse of discretion as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, namely:

Color of law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.

Judicial error: An error made by a judge in applying the law.

Sua sponte correction: A court's power to correct its own record when an error is manifest and justice so requires.

It is a per se miscarriage of justice for the Court to claim jurisdiction over a defendant under a report for which no lawful order was ever issued. That this happened is now not speculative—it is a documented fact.

DEMAND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION

The Defendant demands, under rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, the California Constitution, and pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, that:

1. This Court immediately acknowledge and correct the false and incomplete record with regard to the unauthorized PC § 730 assessment;

2. Vacate all rulings, orders, or consequences that relied upon said unauthorized report;

3. Issue a public correction acknowledging the error and removing any reference to mental incompetence from Defendant’s judicial record;

4. Direct the Office of the Presiding Judge and the Judicial Council of California to investigate how such a flagrant breach of protocol was allowed to proceed under seal;

5. Require Judge Carter to respond in writing, with reasons why the record has not yet been corrected.

CALL TO STATE OVERSIGHT

To the California State Senate Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Council of California, and the State Bar of California, the Defendant hereby respectfully implores that you act swiftly and definitively to admonish this Court, to investigate the underlying judicial misconduct, and to restore public confidence in the administration of justice in Los Angeles County. This matter implicates core constitutional safeguards, exposes judicial and administrative malfeasance, and reveals a judiciary operating not by law, but by inertia and impunity. The Defendant warns that the judiciary may now be in constructive contempt of its own ethical and legal duties, and failure to rectify this situation immediately will be viewed by history—and potentially by federal courts—as a reckless dereliction of constitutional responsibility.

✋️✋️✋️

Response: Jun 10, 2025, 9:40 AM

Hello,

If you would like to file a writ at the Court of Appeal, you must do so via TrueFiling, the filing window or via USPS. If you want to file a notice of appeal, you should do so in the Superior Court. No action will be taken regarding these emails.

COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

300 South Spring Street | Second Floor | North Tower | Los Angeles, CA 90013

General: 213-830-7000

2DCA.clerk@jud.ca.gov| courts.ca.gov/2dca | facebook.com/2dcoa

👇👇👇

⚖️ Exhibit C-7: Judicial Deflection and the Failure to Correct a Jurisdictional Defect — Legal Scrutiny of June 10, 2025 Colloquy

---

📌 Overview

This exhibit analyzes the colloquy (formal written exchange) between Defendant Michael Taylor and the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, arising from a submission sent at 12:42 AM on June 10, 2025, and responded to at 9:40 AM the same day. The exchange concerned a formal, structured complaint demanding sua sponte correction of a jurisdictionally defective record arising from a Penal Code § 730 psychiatric evaluation conducted without judicial authorization.

The appellate court’s email response was unsigned, did not acknowledge receipt of the complaint’s allegations, and refused to act.

---

⚖️ Legal Foundations and Scope of the Complaint

Mr. Taylor’s communication was not a casual correspondence—it was a quasi-petitionary notice invoking the court's inherent judicial power to correct the record and address manifest defects of jurisdiction. Citing a pattern of:

Unauthorized court-ordered evaluations;

Unlawful deprivation of liberty under color of law;

Judicial reliance on procedurally defective mental health records;

Constructive denial of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights;

The complaint raised a plausible claim that the entire competency process was void ab initio, citing the absence of an actual court order under PC § 730 or § 1369, as required by law. It asked the court to act sua sponte under its inherent powers, pursuant to:

Black’s Law Dictionary definitions of misfeasance and judicial error;

Canon 3D(1) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires judges to take corrective action upon receiving credible evidence of misconduct or error;

California Constitution, Article I, Sections 7 and 15, guaranteeing due process and assistance of counsel;

People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, acknowledging that even when jurisdiction is suspended, constitutional violations must be acknowledged and preserved.

This was a jurisdictional challenge, not an appeal, and thus entitled to review under the appellate court’s supervisory authority and/or referral protocols.

---

📨 The Appellate Court’s Reply: Procedural Limitation as Jurisdictional Avoidance

The response issued at 9:40 AM was unsigned, anonymized, and read in full:

> “If you would like to file a writ at the Court of Appeal, you must do so via TrueFiling, the filing window or via USPS. If you want to file a notice of appeal, you should do so in the Superior Court. No action will be taken regarding these emails.”

This language does several critical things:

It refuses jurisdiction without stating a legal basis;

It disregards the constitutional magnitude of the allegations by failing to acknowledge them;

It does not trigger internal referral, triage, or judicial review protocols, despite the complaint meeting threshold requirements for notice;

It avoids identification, which hinders public accountability and contradicts judicial transparency norms.

---

🧩 Legal and Ethical Implications

1. Refusal to Engage With a Manifest Jurisdictional Defect

Judicial officers and clerks are not free to ignore credible jurisdictional defects. In In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1 and People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, courts are obligated to recognize and act on deprivations of fundamental due process even absent formal motion, especially when liberty interests are at stake.

The absence of a court order prior to the evaluation—if uncontested—renders all subsequent proceedings void, not voidable. A sua sponte correction is not discretionary when a jurisdictional defect is proven.

2. Anonymous Reply Violates Canonical Judicial Duties

Canon 2A of the California Code of Judicial Ethics demands behavior that “promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” An unsigned, anonymized communication—on a matter involving due process, mental health detention, and false filings—fails this standard.

It also likely violates Canon 3D, which requires judicial officers or employees with knowledge of credible judicial misconduct to take corrective or reporting action.

3. Constructive Denial of Access to Justice

By refusing to process or respond to a well-founded constitutional grievance, the court’s office functionally denied Mr. Taylor access to judicial review. Courts cannot cite administrative or procedural formalisms to deny a defendant the ability to flag ongoing unconstitutional detention or the abuse of judicial authority.

This response is not unlike what federal courts have condemned in access-to-justice litigation, where bureaucratic barriers effectively nullify the substance of constitutional rights (Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)).

---

🔍 Contextual Connection with Other Exhibits

This colloquy substantiates a pattern of bureaucratic nonresponsiveness to judicial error, consistent with:

Exhibits A-2 and B-4: where no PC § 730 order was located or confirmed;

Exhibit B-9: where appointed counsel Vernon Patterson admitted on record that no court order existed, but took no corrective action;

Exhibits C-3 and C-6: where other institutions similarly declined substantive review despite constitutional stakes;

Exhibit C-7: which analyzed the same response from a policy compliance standpoint.

In total, the exchange becomes evidence of a broader structural failure of judicial self-correction mechanisms.

---

✅ Conclusion

This colloquy reveals that even when a due process violation is articulated, factually documented, and jurisdictionally significant, California’s appellate judiciary may—without explanation or attribution—refuse to acknowledge or act. The June 10, 2025 email response:

Evades accountability by omitting a signatory;

Disregards judicial ethics obligations to acknowledge constitutional error;

Fails to correct a known jurisdictional defect on record;

Reflects an institutional pattern of silence, supporting the inference that California courts are operating under a doctrine of discretionary avoidance rather than lawful review.

> When courts refuse to acknowledge constitutional challenges raised by the very persons deprived of liberty, justice becomes not blind, but inaccessible.

This exchange remains one of the clearest examples of procedural deflection masking substantive abdication of judicial duty. It affirms the need for federal or supra-judicial intervention to correct state-level violations beyond internal remedy.