DEFENDANT #19: ASHFAQ GANI CHOWDHURY #243763 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)
Judge Ashfaq Chowdhury, sitting as the presiding judge at Mr. Taylor’s felony arraignment in Glendale, California, made several key acknowledgments on the record that confirm early judicial awareness of constitutional inconsistencies in the prosecution’s charging documents. While Chowdhury reduced Mr. Taylor’s bail from $1.1 million to $200,000 based on prosecutorial omission and confirmed on record that Mr. Taylor had been attacked by the complaining witness, he nevertheless allowed felony charges to proceed against him alone, in what amounted to a de facto judicial waiver of Equal Protection and Due Process.

Summary of Involvement
At the arraignment stage, Judge Chowdhury had full authority and discretion to question the sufficiency of the complaint, especially where it lacked fundamental fairness. He recognized that the prosecution had failed to disclose that Mr. Taylor was physically attacked, yet:

• Allowed charges of attempted murder and hit-and-run to proceed against Mr. Taylor without equivalent inquiry into the alleged victim’s role;
• Did not order further investigation or evidentiary clarification, despite the presence of surveillance footage and the destruction of key property (the vehicle);
• Failed to appoint conflict-free counsel or inquire into possible retaliation by court-appointed defense attorneys for constitutional assertions.

Months later, after Judge Ronald Kaye remanded Mr. Taylor to custody on 5/23/2024, the defendant wrote a formal letter to Judge Chowdhury, requesting that he investigate judicial misconduct that had taken place under the purview of the LA Superior Court system. Whether or not Judge Chowdhury received that letter directly, the notice was sufficient to trigger judicial or administrative review, especially given that he had previously been the judicial officer with firsthand knowledge of the original constitutional imbalance.

But Judge Chowdhury never replied. He did not inquire, intervene, or redirect the matter for internal oversight, even after being put on notice that a constitutional collapse had occurred across multiple departments of the court.


Why He Is Defendant #19 in the Dossier

• Knowingly permitted charges to proceed despite on-record acknowledgment that Mr. Taylor was assaulted by the complaining witness — a clear Equal Protection violation.
• Failed to act as a constitutional filter at the arraignment stage, where his role was to safeguard against improper or unsupported prosecution.
• Ignored or declined to respond to a written request for judicial review of misconduct, despite being in a position of prior knowledge and duty.
• Allowed the procedural machinery to move forward despite material prosecutorial omissions and retaliatory defense conduct.
• By remaining silent, he ratified the injustices that followed his courtroom and extended their jurisdictional harm.

> “A judge’s silence is never neutral. When Chowdhury saw the imbalance and spoke no judgment, he sealed the system’s breach with judicial quiet. In the Dossier, he stands not as the loudest violator — but as the one who knew, and walked away.”