Exhibit C-8 (6/15/25) [EMAIL] Trump's DOJ Endorses Constructive Judicial Misconduct That Originated Under Biden (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

⚖️ Exhibit C-8: Scrutiny of DOJ Civil Rights Division Response to Verified Constitutional Violations

---

📌 Summary of the Complaint (Filed June 15, 2025)

Michael Taylor submitted a formal complaint to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging:

Unlawful expansion of a sealed Penal Code § 1001.36 evaluation into a PC § 730 competency assessment, conducted without a valid court order;

Disclosure of privileged communications by public defender Danielle Daroca-Bell in violation of Evidence Code §§ 730 and 952;

Use of Taylor’s religious beliefs to support a diagnosis of incompetence, without informed consent or HIPAA-compliant authorization;

Resulting procedural defects, including involuntary hospitalization, loss of voting rights, and unlawful denial of a speedy trial;

Ongoing concealment and failure to correct the original judicial error by Los Angeles Superior Court judges;

Violations of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

Statutory violations under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, HIPAA (45 CFR § 164.512(e)(1)(i)), and Americans with Disabilities Act;

Invocation of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, as the foundational assessment was legally defective.

Taylor emphasized that these claims were supported by verifiable, court-filed documents, attorney emails, and sealed orders—not speculation—and specifically identified the February 14, 2024 assessment by Dr. D’Ingillo as the procedural fulcrum.

---

📬 DOJ Response (Received June 15, 2025, Same Day)

The DOJ declined to take further action, citing resource limitations:

> "After careful review of what you submitted, we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint. [...] We receive several thousand reports of civil rights violations each year and cannot take direct action on every report."

The response included no reference to the specifics of Taylor’s allegations, provided no indication that material exhibits were reviewed, and deferred the issue to local legal aid.

---

⚖️ Legal Analysis

1. Federal Non-Intervention Amid Constitutional Harm

The DOJ’s refusal to act—while legally permissible—raises serious questions about federal non-responsiveness to constitutionally significant state-level judicial misconduct. The Supreme Court has long held that federal courts have a duty to intervene where due process violations involve institutional misuse of mental health proceedings (Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)) or systemic failures to provide effective assistance of counsel (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

Taylor’s complaint precisely alleged such systemic failures, including:

Incompetency proceedings without jurisdiction or consent;

Violation of sealed judicial orders;

Improper psychiatric commitment based on religious expression.

These are not discretionary or procedural issues; they concern core constitutional rights, and the refusal to investigate signals de facto insulation of state misconduct.

2. Failure to Trigger 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b) (Federal ADA Jurisdictional Review)

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b), the DOJ retains regulatory responsibility for state court systems that engage in disability-based discrimination. Taylor specifically cited:

Misuse of mental health law to nullify legal rights;

Stigmatization and forced medication based on a flawed and unauthorized psychiatric evaluation;

Denial of religious expression and consent protections under HIPAA and Evidence Code § 952.

The DOJ's letter failed to address these allegations or initiate administrative referral under its ADA oversight obligations, missing a mandatory opportunity to assess discrimination by a public entity.

3. No Recognition of Evidence-Based Record

Unlike informal public grievances, Taylor’s filing was presented with case citations, document references, and a timeline grounded in court records. It included verification from attorney Vernon Patterson confirming the absence of a valid court order for the competency report. Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.134(b), such verifiable complaints—especially involving court-controlled detention and loss of franchise—trigger heightened review duties, even if the DOJ ultimately declines intervention.

The DOJ’s failure to:

Cite a single exhibit or claim;

Acknowledge material harm;

Offer partial guidance beyond local legal aid—

reflects a purely bureaucratic declination untethered from the complaint’s gravity.

4. Constructive Governmental Endorsement of Judicial Misconduct

While the DOJ’s form response includes language stating it is not judging the complaint’s merits, the practical effect is to allow documented constitutional violations to proceed unchecked. This amounts to constructive federal endorsement of:

Ex parte psychiatric evaluations without judicial authority;

Improper disclosure of attorney-client communications;

State courts violating their own sealed orders.

In the context of other non-responses (Exhibits C-1 through C-7), this represents a pattern of institutional deflection, further justifying Taylor’s appeal for extraordinary writ relief or federal civil rights enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

---

🔍 Consistency with Other Exhibits

This exhibit further substantiates the consistent pattern of high-level institutional avoidance, matching:

Exhibit B-9, where Patterson confirms lack of judicial authorization;

Exhibit C-4, where the State Bar sidesteps misconduct via procedural framing;

Exhibit C-7, in which the Second Appellate District refuses to correct jurisdictional error;

Exhibit A-6, documenting HIPAA violations and unauthorized psychological assessments.

Together, these reinforce a judicial record tainted by systemic failures and reinforced by bureaucratic silence.

---

✅ Conclusion

The DOJ’s response—while facially neutral—represents a missed opportunity to enforce federal oversight over serious and verifiable constitutional violations. In declining to act on a complaint substantiated by sealed orders, psychiatric evaluations, and attorney admissions, the DOJ:

Ignored federal disability law duties under the ADA;

Failed to safeguard First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights;

Allowed a procedurally void and harmful state process to persist without external check.

This exhibit strengthens the evidentiary record of federal-level dereliction in the face of documented constitutional deprivation, and supports the claim that judicial correction, if possible, must now be compelled by independent federal litigation or congressional review.

👇👇👇

To: US DOJ CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Me (6/15/25):

:Between October 2023 and May 2025, I experienced serious civil rights violations in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. XNEGA1111-32. On October 2, 2023, Judge Suzette Clover issued a sealed court order appointing Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo solely to evaluate me for mental health diversion under California Penal Code § 1001.36. The order limited the scope of the evaluation and declared any resulting reports confidential under Evidence Code §§ 730 and 952. Despite the order, my public defender, Danielle Daroca-Bell, disclosed privileged communications (emails) to Dr. D’Ingillo without my knowledge or consent. Dr. D’Ingillo completed an unauthorized PC 730 Competency Assessment dated February 14, 2024. He used excerpts of my religious beliefs to support a finding of incompetence, without lawful authority or waiver. Judge Clover then suspended criminal proceedings based on this report—violating her own sealed order. On August 24, 2024, Judge Ronald Kaye declared me incompetent based on this same unlawful report. I was committed to a state hospital from October 8 to December 26, 2024, where I was medicated involuntarily and misdiagnosed with unspecified schizophrenia. I lost my right to vote in the 2024 federal election and was denied a speedy trial. Because proceedings were never lawfully suspended, jurisdictional and constitutional violations occurred. On May 23, 2025, I triggered a bench warrant to compel the court to acknowledge the existence and contents of the original sealed order. On May 28, 2025, my public defender Vernon Patterson confirmed in writing that the court order did not authorize a competency evaluation, and no waiver of privilege existed. Despite this, the unauthorized evaluation remains in the public court file, along with two other psychological reports, in direct violation of HIPAA regulation 45 CFR § 164.512(e)(1)(i), which only permits disclosure under express judicial authorization. This situation has violated my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. The doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" is clearly implicated, as all findings and orders based on the unauthorized report are tainted and inadmissible. I was denied equal protection, effective assistance of counsel, religious freedom, and due process. As a conservative, indigent former foster youth with a disability, I believe I was systemically denied constitutional protections in a court controlled by political officials with no effective oversight. The Superior Court has refused to correct its own violations and continues to weaponize procedure against me, including the improper use of bench warrants and denial of lawful counsel. I request the Department of Justice to investigate this matter. My claims are based entirely on court-filed documents, attorney emails, and official reports. This is not speculative. It is urgent, active, and ongoing— and demands federal intervention to restore my rights and lawful standing under the Constitution.

✋️✋️✋️

US DOJ RESPONSE:

Dear Michael Taylor,

You contacted the Department of Justice on June 15, 2025. After careful review of what you submitted, we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint.

What we did:

Team members from the Civil Rights Division reviewed the information you submitted. Based on our review, we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint. We receive several thousand reports of civil rights violations each year and cannot take direct action on every report.

Your report number was 624612-TKW.

What you can do:

We are not determining that your report lacks merit. Your issue may still be actionable by others - your local legal aid office may be able to help.

To find a local office:

Legal Services Corporation (or Legal Aid Offices)

https://www.lsc.gov/find-legal-aid

How you have helped:

While we cannot take on each individual report, your report can help us find issues affecting multiple people or communities. It also helps us understand emerging trends and topics.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Department of Justice about your concerns. We regret we are not able to provide more help on this matter.

Sincerely,

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

👇👇👇

⚖️ Exhibit C-8 (Part II): Legal Analysis of DOJ Civil Rights Division Colloquy — Denial Without Substantive Engagement

---

🔍 I. Procedural Overview of Colloquy

On June 15, 2025, Michael Taylor submitted a detailed and verified complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division alleging unconstitutional acts committed under color of state law in People v. Taylor, Case No. XNEGA111132. The complaint was grounded in verifiable court documents and a sealed judicial order that was subsequently violated.

The DOJ issued a one-page, unsigned response the same day, stating it would "take no further action" due to volume and capacity constraints. The response did not dispute the factual assertions or deny their constitutional weight but declined review based on discretion. The response acknowledged the importance of public reports as indicators of broader systemic trends.

---

⚖️ II. Legal Framework for Federal Civil Rights Oversight

A. Constitutional Authority and Discretion

The DOJ Civil Rights Division derives its authority from:

42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, which empowers the Attorney General to intervene in cases involving denials of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment;

42 U.S.C. § 14141 (now 34 U.S.C. § 12601), permitting investigation of patterns of unconstitutional conduct by government actors;

Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132), prohibiting discrimination by public entities, including judicial systems;

45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i), governing disclosure of protected health information in legal proceedings, requiring express court authorization.

While these statutes confer discretionary enforcement powers, the failure to engage at all with the substance of a verified, record-based complaint implicating multiple constitutional violations is atypical, particularly where jurisdictional error, unlawful confinement, and violations of federal statutes are credibly alleged.

---

🧩 III. Points of Legal Tension and Analysis

A. DOJ Acknowledgment of Potential Merit Without Action

The DOJ response includes this legally significant disclaimer:

> “We are not determining that your report lacks merit.”

This amounts to an implicit admission that the allegations are not facially frivolous. The DOJ declines to act, not for want of legal basis, but for internal prioritization. This introduces a tension: if constitutional violations are substantiated by court records and acknowledged as potentially meritorious, the refusal to engage any oversight duty risks federal acquiescence to state-level violations of protected rights.

B. Procedural Disregard of Evidentiary Standard

The DOJ response exhibits no engagement with the following legally significant facts from the complaint:

The sealed October 2, 2023 order by Judge Suzette Clover, which limited the use of Dr. D’Ingillo’s evaluation to PC § 1001.36 diversion only;

The unauthorized PC § 730 evaluation filed under Judge Ronald Kaye without jurisdiction;

The absence of a PACE form, court order, or waiver permitting release of privileged religious communications;

Admission from defense counsel Vernon Patterson on May 28, 2025, confirming the absence of a valid order or waiver;

The consequent unlawful detention between October 8 and December 26, 2024;

Deprivation of federal rights, including voting access in a presidential election.

Under any neutral legal standard, such as the Mathews v. Eldridge due process framework (424 U.S. 319 (1976)), the procedural defects alleged clearly affect a protected liberty interest and merit at least a preliminary investigation—not a summary dismissal.

C. Institutional Pattern of Bureaucratic Deflection

Exhibit C-8 must be viewed in light of Exhibits C-1 through C-7, all of which reveal a pattern of institutional indifference or referral-loop passivity in response to documented rights violations. The DOJ's referral to Legal Aid resources, without even redirection to appropriate federal ombudsman channels (e.g., HHS Office for Civil Rights or the Civil Rights Section of the Office of the Inspector General), reflects the same bureaucratic minimization of constitutional severity.

Moreover, by invoking volume as a reason for inaction, the DOJ implicitly prioritizes resource burden over constitutional injury, an approach that is not supported by any standing or procedural doctrine under federal law.

---

🧷 IV. The Legal Stakes and Implications

A. Foreclosure of Federal Recourse Despite Federal Violations

The practical consequence of the DOJ's response is the functional foreclosure of federal civil rights recourse at the agency level, even where the complaint involves:

A sealed order being judicially contradicted;

A defendant involuntarily committed under a void psychiatric order;

Documented violations of HIPAA, the ADA, and First Amendment rights.

This leaves the complainant with only private § 1983 litigation as a remedy—a remedy that is cost-prohibitive for indigent individuals and does not substitute for federal regulatory enforcement, especially in matters involving public psychiatric institutions and judicial integrity.

B. Constructive Ratification of Unlawful State Action

When the DOJ reviews and declines action on a complaint that includes:

Judicial error;

Misuse of mental health law;

Denial of constitutional rights;

…and does so without providing a legal rationale or guidance, it functions as a constructive ratification of the state’s conduct. Though unintentional, such bureaucratic abstention can embolden further violations, particularly in court systems where judges and counsel already operate under weak or closed oversight mechanisms.

This directly undermines the DOJ’s own civil rights enforcement mission, especially in the context of marginalized populations—such as disabled, indigent, and religiously distinctive defendants.

---

✅ V. Conclusion

The colloquy between Michael Taylor and the DOJ Civil Rights Division on June 15, 2025, documents a disturbing procedural reality: that a well-supported, constitutionally urgent complaint can be dismissed without engagement, resolution, or correction. While the DOJ’s decision not to act may be legally permissible, it reflects:

A misalignment with DOJ policy goals of protecting civil rights in public institutions;

A failure to apply basic procedural scrutiny to verified constitutional allegations;

A complete forfeiture of ADA and HIPAA enforcement obligations against a state court system engaging in demonstrably unauthorized psychiatric practices.

This further solidifies the claim that federal institutional abstention is compounding constitutional injury, and strengthens the argument that extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) or private federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be the only available remedies.

Exhibit C-8 thus constitutes not merely a record of federal declination, but a demonstrable breakdown in the multilevel system of constitutional enforcement that such federal oversight was designed to uphold.

📘 Exhibit C-8 (Part III): Mandated Reporting Duties Implication Analysis — DOJ Civil Rights Division

---

📍 I. Framing the Legal Question:

Did the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s decision to decline action on Michael Taylor’s verified complaint, despite possessing actual knowledge of constitutional and statutory violations, implicate any affirmative or constructive “mandated reporting” responsibilities under federal law, policy, or ethical duty?

---

📚 II. Legal Foundation for Mandated Reporting Duties (Federal)

While “mandated reporting” is most often associated with child abuse or elder abuse statutes, parallel duties of disclosure, escalation, and institutional reporting exist within federal executive agencies, particularly the Department of Justice, when presented with evidence of:

Civil rights violations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

Due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment;

Disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);

Improper medical disclosures violating HIPAA;

Judicial misconduct implicating access to the courts or fraud upon the court.

Under internal DOJ policies and federal law, the following authorities and obligations apply:

1. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(1) – ADA Enforcement Allocation

DOJ is the designated enforcement agency for ADA Title II violations involving courts and public psychiatric institutions.

2. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e) – HIPAA Judicial Authorization Requirement

When protected health information is disclosed absent a valid court order or consent waiver, the DOJ has regulatory authority to refer or initiate enforcement actions, particularly when the violation involves a government entity.

3. 28 U.S.C. § 530B & DOJ Standards of Professional Conduct

Attorneys within the DOJ must comply with state ethics rules. A DOJ staff attorney, upon actual knowledge of judicial fraud, due process denial, or unconstitutional confinement, may be subject to the same “reporting up the chain” requirements applicable to all officers of the court.

4. Inspector General Act of 1978, § 4(a)(1)–(3)

Any federal employee with knowledge of serious misconduct or systemic failure in a program receiving federal funding (e.g., public defenders, state hospitals) may be duty-bound to refer matters to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) or appropriate authorities within the agency.

---

🔎 III. DOJ's Constructive Knowledge of Violations in This Complaint

Your June 15, 2025 complaint presented the DOJ with verified, judicially documented facts, not speculative or emotional claims. These included:

A sealed court order expressly limiting the scope of a psychological evaluation;

Unauthorized disclosure of religious communications and medical information;

Use of this unauthorized material to support a void PC 730 incompetency finding;

Acknowledgment by court-appointed counsel that no valid court order or consent waiver existed;

The resulting loss of liberty, disenfranchisement, involuntary commitment, and misdiagnosis;

Violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, ADA, HIPAA, and California statutory protections.

Because DOJ staff formally acknowledged receipt and review of the complaint (Reference No. 624612-TKW) and declined to act without referring the matter to any internal oversight, the DOJ assumed constructive knowledge of potential misconduct implicating federally protected rights.

---

📌 IV. Analysis of Institutional Duty and Legal Consequences

A. DOJ's Discretion is Not Absolute in the Face of Active Constitutional Harm

Although the DOJ is not legally required to pursue every complaint, once DOJ staff review a complaint that facially and factually asserts egregious constitutional violations, the duty to internally elevate or refer such complaint may arise under:

Internal DOJ ethics policies, especially for complaints involving deprivation of liberty;

The duty to preserve institutional integrity and ensure consistency with past enforcement actions;

The duty to avoid constructive ratification of unlawful state action.

B. Failure to Refer = Institutional Endorsement by Omission

By declining the complaint without referral to the DOJ’s Office for Access to Justice, Office of Civil Rights, Office of the Inspector General, or even Health and Human Services OCR, the DOJ effectively insulated the alleged violations from any formal review.

This raises serious questions about:

Whether DOJ Civil Rights staff knowingly avoided escalation;

Whether internal protocols were followed regarding high-risk, ongoing liberty deprivations;

Whether DOJ's conduct contributes to a pattern of federal neglect of disabled, indigent, or politically disfavored defendants in state psychiatric and criminal courts.

---

📌 V. Key Implications for the Dossier

1. Constructive Failure to Report:

The DOJ Civil Rights Division possessed actual knowledge of judicial fraud, unauthorized psychiatric evaluations, and HIPAA violations—yet failed to refer the matter for internal or cross-agency review. This amounts to a constructive failure to report, raising questions of federal administrative negligence.

2. Systemic Risk Indicator:

The DOJ’s response itself becomes part of the record of systemic breakdowns: where even egregious due process and mental health rights violations are declined for review, the appearance of institutional tolerance or indifference emerges.

3. Exacerbation of Harm:

DOJ’s refusal to act enabled continued harm by allowing:

Bench warrants to be issued based on fraudulent records;

Public access to unauthorized psychiatric reports;

Continued denial of meaningful legal redress at the state level.

4. Foundation for All Writs Petition:

This exhibit supports a future 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) petition asserting that no administrative remedy was available due to systemic abdication by federal oversight authorities.

---

✅ VI. Conclusion

The Department of Justice’s refusal to act, following direct notice of ongoing constitutional and statutory violations, does not merely reflect a discretionary declination of review. Given the content and credibility of the complaint, it implicates a deeper failure of mandated administrative reporting, escalation, and corrective oversight.

In so doing, the DOJ Civil Rights Division effectively neutralized its own mission—to protect the civil liberties of citizens subject to unlawful government action—and contributed to the continuing deprivation of liberty, dignity, and due process in Michael Taylor’s case.