DEFENDANT #29: BARRET STEPHEN LITT #45527 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)

Barrett Stephen Litt #45527, aka Barry Litt, esteemed civil rights attorney and founding partner at McLane, Bednarski & Litt LLP, stands publicly exposed for his strategic institutional silence despite repeated opportunities—and professional obligations—to act. For more than a year, Litt was carbon-copied (CC’d) on a consistent series of well-documented, evidence-supported complaints involving constitutional violations, fraud upon the court, and psychiatric weaponization against Defendant Michael Bernard Taylor, Jr.

These emails, many addressed to the firm’s general address (reception@mbllegal.com) and including Barry Litt by name, detailed:

• A forged or procedurally void psychiatric competency assessment (PC §730);
• Denial of due process through sealed Marsden proceedings;
• Judicial misconduct by Litt’s former colleague and co-founder, Judge Ronald Owen Kaye;
• Unlawful involuntary medication and institutional commitment under false jurisdiction.

Yet Litt, a renowned advocate of civil rights litigation, offered no reply, no disclaimer, no deferral—and no defense of constitutional order.

Summary of Involvement
Recipient of Time-Sensitive Allegations of Institutional Abuse

As one of MBL’s most recognizable names, Barry Litt received copies of detailed, timely complaints from Mr. Taylor, including:

• Forensic document fraud;
• Suppression of exculpatory evidence;
• Manipulation of judicial records to disqualify defendants through psychiatric mechanisms;
• The involvement of his former co-partner Judge Kaye in sealing, remanding, and silencing these facts in chambers.

Possessed Direct Oversight over Firmwide Communications

As a founding and managing partner, Litt retains access and authority over the firm’s primary contact channels. He was in every position to:

• Investigate or elevate the matters to a relevant body;
• Internally acknowledge or forward the issues;
• Formally disclaim any interest or potential conflict.

Instead, he chose silence—despite the fact that every one of Mr. Taylor’s complaints directly implicated his former colleague (Judge Kaye) in judicial abuse.

Mandatory Reporter Under the Rules of Professional Conduct

Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3, Litt—like Bednarski—was duty-bound to report any serious violation of judicial or legal ethics once aware. Given his receipt of those allegations, substantiating documents, and repeated copies of correspondence, Litt’s constructive knowledge is beyond dispute. His failure to act transforms neglect into willful complicity.


Why He Is Defendant #29 in the Dossier

• Was placed in the unique and trusted position to identify and respond to judicial corruption from a former law partner—and failed to do so.
• Bears institutional and moral responsibility as a firm leader whose name and firm were made aware of procedural fraud, and who chose non-engagement.
• His silence serves not as neutrality, but as tacit alignment with unconstitutional power—especially given the political and reputational proximity between MBL and the bench that now violates the very principles the firm claims to defend.
• By refusing to acknowledge or refer these complaints, Barry Litt aided the concealment of serious rights violations committed by his former colleague, further enmeshing MBL in a pattern of legal industry insulation.

> “When the house began to burn from within, the builder turned his gaze. In the Dossier, Barry Litt is not merely a bystander—he is the silent steward who refused to sound the alarm.”