Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

🔷 EXHIBIT A-10: “The Counselor Who Hung Up the Phone: Vernon Patterson’s Final Exit from Ethical Representation”

---

1. Overview

On June 23, 2025, Defendant Michael Taylor formally demanded a written withdrawal of appointed counsel Vernon Lloyd Patterson (#165016) after a critical phone conversation — initiated to resolve irreconcilable legal concerns — was abruptly terminated by Patterson without explanation. The incident followed months of documented suppression of exculpatory issues, refusal to correct jurisdictional defects, and an ongoing campaign of misdirection, gaslighting, and psychiatric coercion.

Taylor’s demand was the culmination of:

Patterson’s refusal to move to dismiss a fraudulently initiated competency evaluation,

His misrepresentation of the necessity for court appearances despite unresolved jurisdiction,

His strategic silence following verifiable allegations of misconduct,

And now, professional disengagement mid-explanation, which functionally cut off communication with the Defendant.

This marks the moment of legal rupture — when the attorney-client relationship collapses beyond repair, evidencing not only ineffective assistance but deliberate sabotage by omission.

---

2. Verbatim Transcript

Date: June 23, 2025

Exhibit ID: A-10

Participants:

Michael Taylor (Defendant)

Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)

---

Patterson (4:17 PM):

As soon as you come to court we will be done.

---

Taylor (4:20 PM):

There’s no reason for me to be there until after tha case is dismissed. The court has already exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no injury. I'm a Whistleblower, Vernon, not a defendant. How will we “be done” if I come to court? Why do I need to be there? For what exactly? There’s no critical decision requiring due process for me to make. C’mon, Mr. Patterson — whatcha got? You dealing with a Man who has already figured you out.

—

(Call placed by Taylor to Patterson at 4:24 PM, duration: 2 minutes, 59 seconds.)

—

Taylor (4:31 PM):

Why did you just hang up on me while I was explaining? Very unprofessional, Mr. Vernon Lloyd Patterson #165016. I am disappointed and confused by your constructive abandonment! I want a full, comprehensive, and unambiguous withdrawal of your representation and/or appointment to my case in writing today. The fall out is inevitable.

---

3. Legal and Procedural Breakdown

🔹 Constructive Abandonment

Constructive abandonment occurs when a defense attorney:

Ceases meaningful communication,

Ignores urgent legal concerns,

Withdraws from adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case,

Or silently acquiesces to unconstitutional outcomes.

The phone call that ended mid-explanation is not merely rude — it terminates the attorney-client relationship in substance, if not yet in form.

Under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), this behavior is:

A denial of counsel during a critical pretrial stage, and

A failure to provide even minimally effective assistance.

🔹 Jurisdictional Challenge Ignored

Taylor’s statements reflect a persistent and legally valid challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction, based on:

The absence of a lawful Penal Code § 730 order for Dr. D’Ingillo’s competency assessment,

A sealed court order being violated and used as a basis for proceedings,

The fabrication of findings that led to his involuntary commitment.

Despite having had weeks of notice, Patterson fails here to:

Dispute the Defendant’s claim that no critical procedural issue awaits his presence in court,

Justify any valid legal purpose for a new appearance without first correcting the record,

Reaffirm his role as advocate rather than courier of prosecution aims.

---

4. Forensic Psychoanalysis

Michael Taylor:

Asserts a valid, consistent legal position about jurisdictional overreach and procedural defect,

Requests a written withdrawal, not out of hostility, but as a procedural necessity to protect his record and case,

Demonstrates emotional control while describing Patterson’s gaslighting, and calmly demands accountability.

Vernon Patterson:

Ends the dialogue abruptly when pressed on unresolved questions,

Offers no response after hanging up — a psychological defensive maneuver to avoid accountability,

Refuses to document withdrawal, signaling an intent to delay a clean separation and perhaps create chaotic substitution records.

Patterson’s repeated avoidance patterns suggest a deep cognitive dissonance — wherein his knowledge of the Defendant’s correct legal reasoning conflicts with his duty to protect the court’s institutional narrative. Rather than face this dilemma, he cuts communication entirely.

---

5. Editorial Commentary: The Sabotage of Silence

When a court-appointed attorney hangs up the phone on a client fighting for his constitutional rights, we are no longer talking about incompetence — we are talking about calculated evasion.

This exchange closes a chapter in the institutional betrayal of public defense. The system deputized Patterson to suppress the very issues that would collapse the case: jurisdiction, privilege, unlawful detention, and the manipulation of mental health processes. When the Defendant finally called him to answer directly, he folded.

A defense attorney who will not go on record with a withdrawal is not just disengaged — he’s dangerous. He weaponizes confusion. He stalls redress. He silences the truth.

---

6. Citations and Legal Authority

• United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
• Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)
• People v. Bonin, 47 Cal.3d 808 (1989)
• California Penal Code § 730, § 1001.36
• California Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7
• California Constitution, Article I, §§ 7, 15

THE VERNON PATTERSON DOSSIER EXHIBIT INDEX:

EXHIBITS A: COMMUNICATIONS

• Exhibit A-1 (4/8/24) [SMS] Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-2 (5/8/24) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-3 (5/12/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue” (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-4 (5/13/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• 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-6 (5/15/25) [SMS] Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-7 (5/23/25) [SMS] Judge Michael Carter Leverages Executive Authority Despite Lacking Jurisdiction; Patterson Weaponizes Silence (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25) [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-9 (6/3/25) [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25) [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)