DEFENDANT #38: NATHAN JOSEPH HOCHMAN #139137 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Bernard Taylor (XNEGA111132-01)
Nathan Hochman, as the sitting District Attorney for Los Angeles County, is named Defendant #38 in The Vernon Patterson Dossier for deliberate indifference, systematic abdication, and constructive ratification of equal protection violations, HIPAA breaches, and criminal fraud committed by subordinate prosecutors and judicial officers under his jurisdiction.

Despite having assumed leadership after prior DA George Gascón (Defendant #20), Hochman inherited the ongoing misconduct surrounding People v. Michael Taylor and was formally notified of said misconduct via an Implication Notice emailed on July 2, 2025. This notice included:

• Allegations of a PC § 730 psychiatric report prepared without a court order,
• A sealed court order prohibiting dissemination of psychological findings being ignored,
• Judicial fraud, due process violations, and malicious prosecution tactics resulting in unlawful commitment.

Grounds for Implication

1. Formal Notice Delivered — July 2, 2025
Nathan Hochman was placed on official record via a detailed implication notice outlining:

• Multiple federal and state constitutional violations,
• Active litigation in State of California et al. v. HHS, filed by California and 19 other states, alleging HIPAA and Medicaid privacy violations—the same kinds of misconduct committed in Taylor’s case,
• Mandatory reporting obligations under BPC §§ 6068(e), 6086.7, and 6090.5, and
• Violations of ABA Model Rule 8.3 (adopted in California July 2023).

The email drew a direct parallel between California’s federal privacy lawsuit and its hypocrisy in weaponizing psychiatric records against Taylor, a known defendant who was being forced into criminal proceedings using inadmissible, confidential data.


2. Institutional Deflection in Official Response

Hochman’s office issued a boilerplate denial on the same day at 10:04 AM:

> “The District Attorney’s Office is prohibited by law from providing legal assistance or advice to a defendant…”

This response failed to acknowledge the substance of the complaint, made no mention of internal investigation or concern, and entirely ignored the notice’s legal weight as an institutional reporting trigger.

This evasion functionally mirrors the behavior of former DA George Gascón and confirms a pattern of DA officewide complicity, regardless of administration.


3. Legal and Ethical Duties Violated

As head prosecutor, Hochman:

• Has the power to review misconduct by deputy DAs (e.g., Sharon Ransom),
• Has statutory authority to refer fraud or due process concerns to oversight agencies,
• Is required by BPC §§ 6068, 6086.7 and Rule 8.3(a) to report unethical conduct by legal professionals, and
• Cannot hide behind administrative neutrality when selective prosecution and evidence destruction are actively ongoing.

The deliberate refusal to investigate or even acknowledge a colorable claim of misconduct in an active criminal case implicates Hochman in:

• Constructive fraud and prosecutorial misconduct,
• Selective enforcement and equal protection violations, and
• Ratification of a known HIPAA breach that directly parallels a federal lawsuit he supports.

> “What California’s Attorney General condemns in court, Nathan Hochman condones in silence. One fights for data privacy—while the other uses stolen data to imprison.”


Public Impact & Doctrine of Notice

By virtue of formal notification, legal authority, and institutional oversight, Hochman’s failure to act triggers personal and professional liability. He is now:

• Implicated in federal civil rights and §1983 violations,
• Liable under Monell v. NYC Dept. of Social Services for his office’s policies and customs,
• Culpable for maintaining silence in the face of overwhelming documentary proof of fraud, ineffective counsel, and judicial abuse.

His inaction is not passive—it is political protectionism at the cost of constitutional rights.