DEFENDANT #39: FRANCES ROTHSCHILD #39602 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Bernard Taylor (XNEGA111132-01):

Frances Rothschild is named Defendant #39 in The Vernon Patterson Dossier for her role as presiding appellate justice over the Second District Court of Appeal, whose administrative apparatus, under her leadership, received but refused to act upon credible, detailed allegations of fraud upon the court, jurisdictional defect, and constitutional violations tied to an unauthorized PC § 730 psychiatric evaluation and related due process breaches in People v. Michael Taylor.

Despite being properly notified of ongoing judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, Justice Rothschild’s office issued a summary dismissal via clerk on June 10, 2025, stating:

> “No action will be taken regarding these emails.”

This policy-level dismissal—carried out under her direct authority—shields lower courts from scrutiny and condones fraud by omission, contrary to the appellate court’s constitutional obligation to uphold the integrity of lower court proceedings.

Grounds for Implication

1. Formal Constructive Notice – June 10, 2025

Justice Rothschild was directly and indisputably placed on constructive notice via email of the following:

• There was no lawful court order for a PC § 730 psychological evaluation used to suspend Taylor’s criminal proceedings;
• The forensic assessment was used to strip Taylor of his liberty and due process rights in violation of California Evidence Code § 730, HIPAA, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;
• The report was admitted by Judge Carter absent jurisdiction, rendering the court’s rulings facially void;
• The Superior Court was notified and failed to take sua sponte action;
• A demand was made for record correction, judicial admonishment, and institutional review under the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

Rather than taking administrative initiative or referring the matter for writ review, Rothschild’s court flatly refused to engage, constituting intentional neglect of appellate responsibility.

2. Institutional Abdication of Appellate Oversight

Justice Rothschild’s appellate court—tasked with supervising lower courts in cases of manifest injustice—refused to even docket the complaint or refer it for evaluation. The email chain shows that no legal or procedural guidance was offered, and no follow-up occurred. Instead, her court’s response promoted formalistic gatekeeping over substantive due process review.

• This refusal directly contravenes the appellate court’s duty to ensure that:
• Defendants are not imprisoned based on unauthorized reports,
• Trial judges do not fabricate legal authority where none exists,
• The public has a reliable system of checks and balances against inferior court fraud.

3. Constructive Ratification of Lower Court Fraud

By failing to act upon a clear factual showing that a trial court judge (Carter) and a mental health court judge (Kaye) abused and extended jurisdiction without legal basis, Justice Rothschild’s inaction constitutes constructive ratification. As a supervising justice, she is bound by:

• Canon 3 of the California Code of Judicial Ethics – mandating appellate courts take appropriate action in response to judicial misconduct;
• California Government Code § 68070 – granting supervisory power over procedural uniformity and fairness;
• Due process doctrine under federal and California Constitutions – requiring oversight mechanisms to function when liberty is at stake.

Her failure allowed false mental health records to remain uncorrected and sealed court orders to be violated with impunity.

> 🧨 “Justice Rothschild’s silence is not neutrality—it’s appellate obstruction. When the trial court lost its way, her court closed its eyes.”

📣 Public Impact & Judicial Failure Doctrine

By insulating lower courts from accountability in a case involving:

• Involuntary psychiatric commitment,
• Election disenfranchisement during hospitalization,
• Attorney-client privilege breaches,
• Fraudulently issued mental incompetency findings,

Justice Rothschild is complicit in perpetuating a pattern of institutional abandonment, reinforcing a system where no venue exists for defendants to challenge falsified proceedings once the trial court seals the record.

This is not merely administrative failure—it is procedural sabotage dressed in the robes of appellate decorum.