DEFENDANT #31: KEVIN JAY LAHUE #237556 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)
Kevin LaHue, a senior civil rights attorney at McLane, Bednarski & Litt LLP, is formally named in The Vernon Patterson Dossier for receiving formal notice of active constitutional violations and court fraud without taking any discernible action. As with his MBL colleagues Barry Litt, Marilyn Bednarski, and David McLane, LaHue was copied (CC’d) on extensive communications and documentary evidence implicating:

• Judge Ronald Owen Kaye (a former MBL founding partner) in unlawful judicial conduct;
• Coordinated suppression of exculpatory evidence by public defenders;
• Fraudulent use of a psychiatric assessment to commit the Defendant without lawful order;
• Concealment of a void commitment order in violation of Penal Code § 1369;
• The use of sealed proceedings to deny redress during critical stages of litigation.

Kevin LaHue, by professional proximity, firm association, and ethical mandate, was in every position to act—but never did.

Summary of Involvement
Constructive Knowledge via Dozens of Email Chains

LaHue was CC’d directly or indirectly on a long sequence of formal allegations, complaints, and evidence files that included:

• The cover page of the allegedly fraudulent PC § 730 competency assessment;
• Minute orders disproving judicial authorization;
• Repeated notices of sealed Marsden hearings used to circumvent open-court objections;
• The identity of Vernon Patterson (#165016), the Bar Panel attorney coercing participation in unlawful psychiatric proceedings.

Despite this constructive notice, LaHue failed to acknowledge, disclaim, forward, or investigate any part of the communications—effectively shielding misconduct through silence.

Ethical Duty Triggered by Relationship to Judge Kaye

Given that Judge Ronald Kaye—the presiding judge during many of these events—was a former MBL founding partner, LaHue’s firm had a heightened responsibility to affirm independence, disclaim conflict, or refer the matter externally. Instead, LaHue’s non-response aligns with a firmwide pattern of strategic disengagement, plausibly designed to avoid reputational liability.

Professional Standing Creates Affirmative Duty

As a licensed attorney under California State Bar #237556, LaHue is subject to:

• Rule 8.3 (Duty to Report Misconduct);
• Rule 8.4 (Misconduct through Silence or Evasion);
• Fiduciary duties of candor to the tribunal, particularly in matters of public integrity and the judicial process.

LaHue's inaccessibility, silence, and failure to acknowledge over a prolonged, repeated contact timeline now constitutes constructive complicity—if not direct ethical negligence.


Why He Is Defendant #31 in the Dossier

• Had the authority, access, and ethical mandate to respond or refer explosive claims of government misconduct—and chose to do nothing;
• Maintains an institutional relationship with the judge at the center of the fraud (Kaye), making his silence not only negligent but compromised;
• Was carbon copied across months of verified misconduct claims involving sealed courtroom activity, fraudulent commitments, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct;
• Embodies the institutional rot wherein “civil rights” firms refuse to protect defendants whose oppression exposes their own structural vulnerabilities.

> “In the court of public judgment, where silence is testimony and inaction is verdict, Kevin LaHue stood not as advocate—but as custodian of quiet complicity.”