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-9: Legal Analysis of Congressional Oversight Request to Rep. Judy Chu

---

🧭 I. Overview of the Complaint

On June 22, 2025, Michael Bernard Taylor submitted a detailed, documented request to Congresswoman Judy Chu, asserting Fraud Upon the Court, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and voting rights suppression arising from unlawful psychiatric competency proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. XNEGA111132 / GA111132). The complaint demanded referral to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division or Office of Inspector General, citing:

Unauthorized Penal Code § 730 psychiatric evaluation without a court order;

Unlawful commitment and psychiatric detention between October and December 2024;

Denial of constitutional rights (access to court, counsel, due process, and religious freedom);

Suppression of voting rights during the November 2024 federal election.

The complaint directly implicated judicial officers, public defenders, and medical professionals acting under color of law. It was accompanied by a Privacy Release Form and four documentary exhibits.

---

📌 II. Legal Substance of the Complaint

Mr. Taylor’s request articulated claims that, if substantiated, implicate violations of:

U.S. Const. amend. I, IV, V, VI, and XIV

Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. §§ 10301 et seq.)

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132)

HIPAA confidentiality regulations (45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e))

California Penal Code §§ 1368, 1369, and 1001.36

California Evidence Code §§ 730, 952

Federal doctrines such as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, procedural due process, and equal protection

The complaint also identified direct evidence contradicting the legality of the psychological report used to suspend criminal proceedings, including an admission from court-appointed counsel that no valid court order ever existed for the PC 730 evaluation. It further alleged that the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty prevented the complainant from voting in the November 2024 federal election, thereby triggering a civil rights enforcement interest under federal jurisdiction.

---

🧩 III. Response from Rep. Judy Chu’s Office

The only reply received was a non-substantive, automated confirmation email generated by the House Privacy Release Portal on the same date. The reply confirmed that:

A Privacy Release Form was received (Confirmation ID: dTyRLuc2vYSigUl7Ktfh);

Four attachments were uploaded;

No substantive human reply or commitment to review, escalate, or respond to the complaint was included.

---

🔍 IV. Legal Analysis of Congressional Duty and Discretion

A. Jurisdictional Limits

Under federal law, a Member of Congress:

May not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings or provide legal advice;

Is not compelled by law to act on constituent communications involving legal complaints;

Does have discretion to refer serious constitutional or civil rights concerns to federal agencies, including the DOJ or its Office of Legislative Affairs.

B. Oversight and Fiduciary Discretion

While non-action by Rep. Chu’s office may be lawful on its face, the failure to substantively acknowledge or escalate a facially valid claim of constitutional deprivation and voter suppression—especially when presented by a constituent who has already submitted verifiable evidence and a privacy release—raises issues of oversight neglect and fiduciary discretion in crisis contexts.

Given that:

The subject matter implicated a federal election disenfranchisement;

The misconduct arose from a state judicial proceeding with federal civil rights consequences;

The complaint documented ongoing and imminent harm;

...the total absence of acknowledgment or escalation creates an institutional optics problem and undermines the very representational function of a congressional office in protecting constituent rights from state-level abuses.

---

⚖️ V. Mandated Reporting and Constructive Knowledge

While Congressmembers are not “mandatory reporters” in the legal sense like attorneys or therapists, the doctrine of constructive knowledge and institutional implication arises when:

1. A complaint presents documented proof of federal rights violations;

2. A congressional office accepts and logs a privacy release, demonstrating jurisdiction;

3. No human action is taken, even when escalation would be customary, discretionary, or expected under the circumstances.

In this instance, Rep. Chu’s office cannot plead ignorance. Receipt of the Privacy Release and dossier created an institutional record of constructive knowledge, particularly given the election interference implications. If no subsequent review or referral is made, the office risks complicity by omission in the face of active constitutional harm.

---

💬 VI. Comparative Enforcement Practice

Other offices (e.g., Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, DOJ, ACLU) have responded similarly, declining jurisdiction. However, none of them were presented with the combined election suppression, unlawful psychiatric detention, and confirmed court record tampering that distinguishes this case. That distinguishes this exhibit as singularly urgent in the federal oversight context.

---

🧾 VII. Dossier Implications

No human response from Congresswoman Judy Chu’s office undermines its oversight credibility;

The evidentiary bar presented in the complaint triggered a non-frivolous duty to escalate, particularly given the Voting Rights Act implications;

This exhibit serves as evidence of the federal delegation’s failure to act even when presented with irrefutable civil rights violations in their own district;

May be cited in future federal pleadings (e.g., mandamus, All Writs Act, Section 1983 claim) to demonstrate exhaustion of all political remedies.

---

✅ VIII. Conclusion

Congresswoman Judy Chu’s office, through its receipt of a complete Privacy Release Form and verifiable civil rights complaint, had both the opportunity and institutional discretion to refer this matter to federal authorities for further inquiry. The total lack of response, particularly in light of documented voter suppression, raises serious questions about the responsiveness of elected officials to constitutional violations against indigent or marginalized constituents. While not unlawful in isolation, the inaction becomes legally and ethically conspicuous within the broader pattern of state and federal abandonment detailed in Exhibits C-1 through C-9.

👇👇👇

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF COMPLAINT 

6/22/25

To Congresswoman Judy Chu

Me:

Urgent Request for Congressional Referral to U.S. Department of Justice for Fraud Upon the Court and Related Federal Violations Dear Congresswoman Judy Chu, I write you today with the utmost urgency and gravity. I am respectfully requesting that your office refer my case to the U.S. Department of Justice for immediate investigation based on conclusive evidence of Fraud Upon the Court that has resulted in long-term, ongoing violations of my constitutional and civil rights. I have compiled a meticulously documented dossier which includes verified court transcripts, dated communications, and procedural records from the People v. Michael Bernard J. Taylor (Case No. XNEGA111132 / GA111132) matter in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. These documents establish that I was: Subjected to a Penal Code § 730 psychiatric evaluation without any valid court order, Committed to a state mental institution on the basis of that fraudulent report, Deprived of due process and access to court on multiple occasions, and Systematically denied the right to assert and preserve constitutional defenses by attorneys operating under color of law. The fraud was materially enabled and covered up by multiple court officers and counsel after a Penal Code 1368 declaration was issued on 2/14/24 without any formal finding of incompetence or meaningful hearing. All this occurred while I was a registered voter and active citizen preparing to participate in the November 2024 federal election. Violation of Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) As a result of the fraudulently induced 730 evaluation, I was unlawfully hospitalized and stripped of my liberty from October to December 2024, directly overlapping with the November 5, 2024 federal election. I was thereby prevented from casting my vote, despite meeting every legal requirement to do so, constituting a de facto violation of the Voting Rights Act. This was not an accident. The hospitalization was the downstream result of a fabricated record, produced with full knowledge that no court ever signed an order authorizing that psychiatric assessment, and that I had never consented to such an evaluation outside of Penal Code §1001.36 Diversion. Why This Must Be Escalated As a sitting member of Congress who represents the region where this case occurred, I am appealing to your federal oversight duty to ensure judicial accountability and to prevent these constitutional violations from being normalized. The facts outlined in my dossier amount to: Fraud Upon the Court Obstruction of Justice Denial of Counsel of Choice Malicious Prosecution Unlawful Psychiatric Detainment Voter Suppression by Deprivation of Liberty During a Federal Election If these facts are ignored or brushed aside, it could send the signal that fraudulent judicial practices and due process violations can continue unchallenged under federal watch. Not only would this reflect poorly on our justice system — it could set a precedent that undermines voting rights and constitutional protections for other constituents. Final Request I urge your office to conduct a preliminary review of my complaint and dossier and refer this matter directly to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, or the Office of the Inspector General for formal investigation and oversight. If escalated appropriately, this will be an opportunity for your office to take principled action against institutional fraud and prevent further civil rights violations. If not, it may become a matter of public interest that raises serious optics questions around federal inaction in the face of overt judicial misconduct. Please confirm receipt of this letter and advise me of the next steps. I remain ready to cooperate and provide all supporting evidence necessary. Respectfully, Michael Bernard Taylor (626)8176978 michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com

✋️✋️✋️

6/22/25

no_reply@mail.house.gov

Michael Taylor,

Thank you for submitting the Privacy Release Form.

Confirmation ID: dTyRLuc2vYSigUl7Ktfh

Files uploaded: 4

File Names: 20250604_190330_0000.png, Screenshot_20250513_090528_Voice.jpg, Screenshot_20250518_200008_Gmail.jpg, 20250516_011508.jpg

This is your confirmation notification that you have successfully submitted the digital release form.

A copy of your submission has been attached.