🔷 EXHIBIT A-9: June 3, 2025 — The Defendant Declares Constructive Abandonment Amidst Counsel's Refusal to Address Privileged Report Misuse
---
1. Overview
On June 3, 2025, Defendant Michael Taylor issued a formal declaration of constructive abandonment in direct response to Public Defender Vernon Patterson’s (#165016) dismissive text message calling the Defendant’s due process and privacy claims “nonsense.” Taylor’s response, framed in precise constitutional and ethical terms, exposes Patterson’s dereliction of duty, refusal to correct sealed order violations, and continued attempts to pathologize constitutionally protected objections.
This exchange confirms:
A non-confidential psychiatric report was submitted in violation of a sealed order,
The defense attorney refused to challenge or correct it,
And instead, furthered prejudicial assumptions of incompetence, directly aiding the State.
It is now indisputable that Patterson aligned with institutional misconduct over client defense — triggering a Cronic-level denial of counsel and Strickland-level ineffectiveness.
---
2. Verbatim Transcript
Date: June 3, 2025
Exhibit ID: A-9
Participants:
Michael Taylor (Defendant)
Vernon Patterson (#165016, Deputy Public Defender)
---
Patterson:
I have told you that you are in bench warrant status. Stop sending me group messages. You are wrong on so many levels. You think that you know what you are talking about but you don’t. I am concerned about your competency. In my opinion you are not competent. I will level it up to the doctors to make the final decision. You say that you want to get on with your life — do it. Either come back to court or don’t. You will be arrested sooner or later. Stop the nonsense.
---
Michael Taylor:
Mr. Patterson, I am writing to formally address your recent statement referring to my concerns about the improper use of the confidential mental health report as “nonsense.” This statement, combined with your ongoing refusal to investigate or challenge the court's reliance on an evaluation that was explicitly ordered to remain confidential, constitutes constructive abandonment within the meaning of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984).
As you are aware, the court’s order dated October 2, 2023, appointed Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo for the sole and confidential purpose of evaluating my eligibility for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36, pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 730, 952, and 1017. The report was not to be disclosed to the prosecution or the court absent my express, knowing, and voluntary waiver.
Nevertheless, the evaluator submitted a non-confidential Penal Code § 730 competency report directly to the court — in violation of both the scope of the order and my statutory privilege. Your refusal to challenge this breach, and instead advise me to “turn myself in” while dismissing this serious legal violation as “nonsense,” reflects a complete abdication of your role as legal advocate.
You have been given multiple timely and reasonable opportunities to:
1. Investigate the breach of confidentiality,
2. Confirm whether a valid waiver was executed (none exists),
3. Move to strike or suppress the improper filing,
4. Advise me based on a defense-centered, privilege-protecting strategy.
Instead, you have shifted blame onto me for raising a legitimate defense issue and placed the burden of remedy on the very party whose rights have been violated.
This conduct breaches your obligations under the California Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 1.3 (Diligence),
Rule 1.4 (Communication),
Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest),
as well as your constitutional duty under the Strickland standard to provide effective assistance.
Legally, this creates a presumptively prejudicial conflict of interest and a constructive denial of counsel, which I am prepared to assert in a Marsden motion and/or future appellate proceedings if unremedied.
Please consider this a final written request that you:
Confirm whether any waiver was executed,
Take corrective action regarding the improperly filed evaluation,
Refrain from further dismissive or antagonistic commentary that undermines my constitutional right to participate in my defense.
If no action is taken, I will treat this email as part of the record supporting a formal claim of constructive abandonment and ineffective assistance of counsel.
---
3. Legal and Procedural Breakdown
🔹 Violation of Court Order and Evidentiary Code
October 2, 2023 Order clearly limits the scope of Dr. D’Ingillo’s evaluation to Penal Code § 1001.36 (mental health diversion) — not competency under § 1368 or § 1370.
Penal Code § 1368(b) requires court declaration of doubt before a competency evaluation. No such order was ever issued prior to D’Ingillo’s report.
California Evidence Code §§ 952 and 1017 make it clear that psychiatric disclosures made for legal strategy are privileged unless expressly waived.
There is no signed waiver. Patterson admitted this in
Exhibit A-8.
🔹 Constructive Abandonment and Conflict of Interest
Under United States v. Cronic (1984), a complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing constitutes presumptive prejudice — especially when:
Defense counsel ignores or suppresses exculpatory procedural facts,
Fails to file critical suppression motions,
And aligns himself with the adversary.
Patterson’s repeated claims that the Defendant is “not competent” — while refusing to challenge fabricated jurisdiction — reflect an inherent conflict of interest under Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), and People v. Bonin, 47 Cal.3d 808 (1989).
---
4. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Michael Taylor:
Maintains structured legal reasoning,
Applies federal and state legal authority with precision,
Articulates a coherent defense theory grounded in actual statutory law and ethics.
Vernon Patterson:
Escalates to non-clinical declarations of incompetency,
Avoids procedural remedies,
Refuses to accept valid criticism — choosing instead to double down on judicial gaslighting,
Expresses emotional fatigue over professional accountability — signaling voluntary withdrawal from effective advocacy.
---
5. Editorial Commentary: Institutional Retaliation as Legal Strategy
By June 3, the pattern is unmistakable: when a legally literate defendant begins to outmaneuver the system, psychiatric suppression becomes the institution’s fallback. This exhibit confirms that Patterson intended to manufacture a renewed incompetency claim precisely to derail the Defendant's airtight objection regarding:
Illegally obtained evidence,
Unsealed privileged material, and
Jurisdictionally defective proceedings.
Rather than argue against Taylor’s legal points, Patterson invoked mental illness as a pretext to silence valid legal objections.
This is the blueprint of psychological warfare in the legal system: when law fails, stigma and psychiatry are weaponized.
---
6. Citations and 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 (198
- California Evidence Code §§ 730, 952, 1017
- California Penal Code §§ 1001.36, 1368, 1370
- California Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.7
.jpg "Exhibit A-9 Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations")
.jpg "Exhibit A-9.1 Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations")
.jpg "Exhibit A-9.2 Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations")
Comments
Post a Comment