State Bar of California Chief Trial Counsel George Sargent Cardona Issues Material Mischaracterization of Indigent Defendant Complaint
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2025, 5:11 PM
Subject: RE: Formal Objection to Material Mischaracterization and Procedural Irregularity in State Bar's Closure of Complaint 24-O-15811: CA STATE BAR TRIAL COUNSEL LAKSHMI JAGANNATH #251212
To: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Cc: Jagannath, Lakshmi <Lakshmi.Jagannath@calbar.ca.gov>, CRU <cru@calbar.ca.gov>
Mr. Taylor:
As you note in your email below, on June 3, 2025, you submitted a complaint form setting out allegations of misconduct against attorneys Danielle Marie Belle and Vernon Lloyd Patterson. As a result, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) opened two new cases: (1) OCTC case number 25-O-19214 against Ms. Belle; and (2) OCTC case number 25-O-19214 against Mr. Patterson. Letters acknowledging our receipt of your complaint form, advising you of the opening of these two cases, and providing you with the case numbers were sent to you on June 3, 2025.
Both Ms. Belle and Mr. Patterson had been the subject of a prior complaint by you. In particular, on April 11, 2024, you submitted a complaint form setting out allegations of misconduct against Mr. Patterson, who at the time had been appointed to and was representing you in your criminal case. Included in your allegations were that Mr. Patterson was improperly "pressuring me to proceed with mental health evaluations while failing by refusal to object to compelling evidence of foul play by my previous public defenders Mr. Le & Ms. Daroca-Bell" and could not effectively represent you because he was "assisting public defenders in diverting attention from how they have violated my rights to effective counsel before declaring 3 consecutive conflicts of interest without reason." As a result of your complaint, OCTC opened OCTC case number 24-O-15041 against Mr. Patterson.
Subsequently, on April 28, 2024, you submitted a complaint form setting out allegations of misconduct against Ms. Belle and a number of other attorneys who had previously represented you in your criminal case. Included in your allegations were that Ms. Belle improperly "sent privileged information to the evaluating doctor that inappropriately used my religious beliefs to influence the assessment" of mental competency and that Ms. Belle and the other attorneys had "all engaged in a concerted effort to deny defendant access to the assessment preventing the defendant from making informed decisions in court." As a result of your complaint, OCTC opened complaints against all of the attorneys you named in your complaint, including in particular OCTC case number 24-O-15811 against Ms. Belle.
After its review of the allegations in your April 11, 2024, and April 28, 2024, complaints, OCTC decided to close all of the cases that had been opened based on the complaints, including the cases against Ms. Belle (24-O-15811) and Mr. Patterson (24-O-15041). On May 24, 2024, OCTC sent you a closing letter explaining the basis for its decision to close these matters. A copy of this letter is attached. In that closing letter, OCTC specifically addressed your allegations, including that all of the lawyers "provided ineffective assistance of counsel," that all of the lawyers "improperly recommended that you pursue mental health diversion," that the lawyers improperly "declared a conflict of interest without providing an adequate justification and you believed that they abandoned your case because you were asserting your constitutional rights," that Ms. Belle improperly disclosed confidential information that the evaluator then "inappropriately used" in the assessment, and that all of the lawyers "were protecting each other because they all went to the same law school and therefore you believed that they were all biased." In deciding to close as to Ms. Belle, OCTC noted in particular that based on the information provided "it appears that you consulted with Ms. Bell several times about the mental health diversion path and your interest in that option," that there were "insufficient facts presented to show that Ms. Bell disclosed confidential information without your consent or otherwise committed misconduct, and that there were "insufficient facts to demonstrate that the lawyers' withdrawal violated the ethical rules," that the "lawyers received court approval" for their withdrawal, and that "there are no facts presented to show that your rights were prejudiced from their withdrawal." In deciding to close as to Mr. Patterson, we noted that, as with the other lawyers, "the facts you presented do not demonstrate that the lawyers committed misconduct in the manner in which they handled your case," that is, that "the specific facts provided in your complaint do not support that the lawyers violated the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct."
As can be seen from the above, the allegations against Ms. Belle and Mr. Patterson in your April 11, 2024, and April 28, 2024, complaints were wide-ranging and effectively encompassed the narrower set of allegations made in your subsequent June 3, 2025, complaint. When it reviewed your June 3, 2025, complaint, OCTC made this determination, and therefore treated the information provided in your June 3, 2025, complaint as supplemental information relating to the allegations in your earlier complaints. As a result, on August 1, 2025, OCTC closed the two cases opened as the result of your June 3, 2025, complaint (OCTC case numbers 25-O-19214 and 25-O-19215) as duplicative. Thereafter, on August 4, 2025, with respect to Ms. Bell, OCTC sent you the letter referenced in your email below, which was sent in connection with OCTC case number 24-O-15811, explaining that the allegations in your June 3, 2025, complaint (as well as additional information provided to OCTC in August 2024 and May 2025) provided "no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint." Earlier, on May 19, 2025, OCTC had sent you a letter with respect to Mr. Patterson, in connection with OCTC case number 24-O-15041, explaining that additional information provided by you to OCTC in August 2024 and May 2025 similarly provided no new evidence that would merit reopening that case. This will confirm that after review of the vague and general allegations against Mr. Patterson in your June 3, 2025, complaint, those too provide no new evidence that would merit reopening a case against Mr. Patterson.
In light of the above, OCTC's decisions to close cases 24-O-15811 and 25-O-19214 against Ms. Belle and cases 24-O-15041 and 25-O-19214 against Mr. Patterson will stand. It appears that you did not seek review by the Complaint Review Unit of the closures of cases 24-O-15811 or 25-O-15041. The time for seeking such review has run. If you wish to seek review, you will need to seek authorization from the Complaint Review Unit to submit a request for review. Request for such authorization should be submitted to the Complaint Review Unit in writing by no later than 90 days from the date of this email. The email and mailing addresses for the Complaint Review Unit are included in the attached May 24, 2024, closing letter. In the absence of any action by the Complaint Review Unit, OCTC considers the closures of all of these complaints final. Any future communications received from you concerning these matters that, after review, are determined not to provide facts warranting further action, will be attached to the closed files without a response.
George S. Cardona (he/him/his)
Chief Trial Counsel, Office of Chief Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California | 845 South Figueroa Street | Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-765-1015 | george.cardona@calbar.ca.gov
OUR VALUES | Clarity • Investing in Our People • Excellence • Respect • Growth Mindset
____________________________________________________________
Working to protect the public in support of the mission of the State Bar of California.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | YouTube
This message may contain confidential information. Unless you are the intended recipient or are authorized to receive information for the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or disclose the message in whole or in part. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the message. Thank you.
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:40 AM
To: Jagannath, Lakshmi <Lakshmi.Jagannath@calbar.ca.gov>
Cc: judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov; Judicial Ethics <Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov>; JudicialMentors@jud.ca.gov; Judicial Senator <sjud.fax@sen.ca.gov>; Judicial Clerk 2nd District <2dca.clerk@jud.ca.gov>; First District Judiciary <First.District@jud.ca.gov>; 2nd District Judiciary <Second.District@jud.ca.gov>; ExecutiveDirector <ExecutiveDirector@calbar.ca.gov>; deputyexecutivedirector <deputyexecutivedirector@calbar.ca.gov>; CTC <CTC@calbar.ca.gov>; Cardona, George <George.Cardona@calbar.ca.gov>; GC <GC@calbar.ca.gov>; Gupta, Paras <Paras.Gupta@calbar.ca.gov>; Chief of Admissions <coa@calbar.ca.gov>; CFO <CFO@calbar.ca.gov>; Harvey, Mark <Mark.Harvey@calbar.ca.gov>; Doherty, Erika <Erika.Doherty@calbar.ca.gov>; Wilson, Leah <Leaht.Wilson@calbar.ca.gov>; Chris Knudsen <chris.knudsen@doj.ca.gov>; StateAuditor@doj.ca.gov; Hom, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Hom@calbar.ca.gov>; secretariat <secretariat@calbar.ca.gov>; Ayrapetyan, Louisa <Louisa.Ayrapetyan@calbar.ca.gov>; Feedback <FEEDBACK@calbar.ca.gov>; justicecantilsakauye@adrservices.com; Webb, Elgin <Elgin.Webb@calbar.ca.gov>; Louie, Ellen <Ellen.Louie@calbar.ca.gov>; drochmes@da.lacounty.gov; skatz@da.lacounty.gov; dfelizzatto@da.lacounty.gov; mhanisee@da.lacounty.gov; tlee@novoslawllp.com; jtillson@da.lacounty.gov; mariaramirez65@hotmail.com; gwright@da.lacounty.gov; ilee@da.lacounty.gov; sfrank6576@aol.com; jwalker@da.lacounty.gov; lavila@da.lacounty.gov; amattson@da.lacounty.gov; mckinney@da.lacounty.gov; mbaxter@da.lacounty.gov; pmusso@da.lacounty.gov; kcady@da.lacounty.gov; Jdsilva@da.lacounty.gov; grai@da.lacounty.gov; akarkanen@da.lacounty.gov; scdominguez@da.lacounty.gov; apellman@da.lacounty.gov; rgrace@da.lacounty.gov; estreet@da.lacounty.gov; bchen@da.lacounty.gov; grendon@da.lacounty.gov; jmorris@da.lacounty.gov; mbean@da.lacounty.gov; jkramer@da.lacounty.gov; tmokayef@da.lacounty.gov; fdunnick@da.lacounty.gov; ejerez@da.lacounty.gov; afoster@da.lacounty.gov; jtaksar@da.lacounty.gov; Cynthia Nakao <cnakao@da.lacounty.gov>; mmurray@da.lacounty.gov; jlustig@da.lacounty.gov; aleahy@da.lacounty.gov; cchaiyar@da.lacounty.gov; sarikakim@da.lacounty.gov; apott@da.lacounty.gov; Mhaidar@da.lacounty.gov; sdominguez@da.lacounty.gov; gshirley@da.lacounty.gov; jchang@da.lacounty.gov; ccurtis@da.lacounty.gov; iphan@da.lacounty.gov; chrisbaker@da.lacounty.gov; lorquiola@da.lacounty.gov; kabourezk@da.lacounty.gov; mvellakk@da.lacounty.gov; jhatami@da.lacounty.gov; JColello@da.lacounty.gov; fsantoro@da.lacounty.gov; jmejia@da.lacounty.gov; chenry@da.lacounty.gov; jmcgrath@da.lacounty.gov; gsantiso@da.lacounty.gov; lkwon@da.lacounty.gov; bmccartt@da.lacounty.gov; mderose@da.lacounty.gov; twhitney@da.lacounty.gov; Kathryn Albracht <kalbrach@da.lacounty.gov>; hyun@da.lacounty.gov; mhumphrey@da.lacounty.gov; ayochelson@da.lacounty.gov; awise@da.lacounty.gov; vivian@yochelsonlaw.com; info@yochelsonlaw.com; gapt@da.lacounty.gov; jniedermann@da.lacounty.gov; emiyata@da.lacounty.gov; gdameron@da.lacounty.gov; knishita@da.lacounty.gov; spenland@da.lacounty.gov; kchun@da.lacounty.gov; BjDodd@da.lacounty.gov; mbeaart@da.lacounty.gov; ljkessner@da.lacounty.gov; pkim@da.lacounty.gov; mchung@da.lacounty.gov; spmire@da.lacounty.gov; dwright@da.lacounty.gov; ldroeger@da.lacounty.gov; Rebrahim@da.lacounty.gov; spresby@da.lacounty.gov; rgerber@da.lacounty.gov; gsatriano@da.lacounty.gov; thicks@da.lacounty.gov; aud@metro.net; steve@baghoomianlaw.com; tbates@reedsmith.com; epb@epblegal.com; rbragaw@bragawslaw.com; jcastle@castlelegalgroup.com; clemmonsjd <clemmonsjd@cs.com>; DAYRESOLUTIONS@gmail.com; duprepatricia@gmail.com; otis.felder@wilsonelser.com; LegalFlack@gmail.com; mrgold878@yahoo.com; kfreedman@earthlink.net; egipson@elliotgipson.com; christina@cschwartzlaw.com; gold.leslie@icloud.com; bagreenbergaplc@gmail.com; lgriffith <lgriffith@griffithpc.com>; tkhadley@gmail.com; hanna.law@att.net; john@hernandezlaw.co; evan@emhlegal.com; richard@huettllaw.com; info@wkdlegal.com; nfking@hotmail.com; luke@kuolawoffice.com; bklynboy149@gmail.com; lydialiberioesq@verizon.net; Adam@marangelllaw.com; german.marcucci@ropers.com; londonlaw@yahoo.com; peterpaul@peterpaulmendel.com; bmoldo@ecjlaw.com; mubasheresq@gmail.com; david.myers@fnf.com; Marge@margeslaw.com; rpearman@sandersroberts.com; hhr.law@gmail.com; richard@rosensteinlaw.com; saintmartinandfan@sbcglobal.net; Anthony Sears <tony@nitwik.com>; rokbums1951@gmail.com; mshulman@sflg.us; Jay@steinlawyer.com; weappear4u@gmail.com; laprobate@gmail.com; swarren@swarrenlaw.com; intlaweiss@gmail.com; rweissman@rwreceiver.com; zuggielaw <zuggielaw@gmail.com>; Allan.Smith@nbcuni.com; ryan.reilly@nbcuni.com; monica.alba@nbcuni.com; Vaughn.Hillyard@nbcuni.com; Ken.Dilanian@nbcuni.com; Ellis, Mia <Mia.Ellis@calbar.ca.gov>
Subject: Formal Objection to Material Mischaracterization and Procedural Irregularity in State Bar's Closure of Complaint 24-O-15811: CA STATE BAR TRIAL COUNSEL LAKSHMI JAGANNATH #251212
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Okay "Lakshmi". You shouldn't listen to whatever devil in your office told you to close my complaint without specification. Your mere response to my complaint proves I have standing in and of itself, and your reliance on my participation in People v Michael Taylor proves I have rights you don't "want" to respect. You guys are breaking the law, under color of law, based on what YOU don't want lol. As if my needs should come secondary to the prejudice of strangers. I will not be tolerating the prejudice of some deep state trial counselor named after some fake, false goddess, which there is no such thing of.
You prove me right about female leadership not having tha guts to stand in tha gaps. Just like I was right about my rights, catholics, and legal procedure. But whatever. You guys are clearly vexed.
Imagine trying to run a business while a cowardly state is holding you hostage so they don't get in trouble for tha poor decisions they made on their own.
You all are so incompetent, it's dangerous! You all knew what you were doing so much so that you ignored each and all of my lawful and reasonable assertions in exchange for deviations of procedure. And in tha end, you only dug a hole for yourselves. Indeed, tha pit you dug for me, IS for you! I'm sorry you chose not to believe that God's word is living. You gave me leverage I couldn't buy.
Oh, tha wonderful genius and majesty of The One True Lord Jesus Christ, who has given into my hand The Great State of the California Republic, who are now trapped by their own devices!
🛑🛑🛑
👇👇👇
I submitted this state bar complaint on 6/3/25:
"Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell violated Judge Suzette Louise Clover's Court Order by submitting a confidential report as substantial evidence of incompetence, which triggered suspension of criminal proceedings and jurisdictional transfer before a fair evaluation as required by law. Daroca-Bell then declared a conflict of interest after violating the order in attempt to distance and/or absolve herself of legal liability. Because the court relied on inadmissible evidence that violated its own court order, judicial impartiality is lost and it is now imperative that the State Bar intervene to prevent further harm to me and my case. Daroca-Bell is Friends with Vernon Patterson, my current court-appointed attorney, on Facebook which suggests that he, too is materially limited in his ability to represent me and my interests. He has repeatedly stated that both Ms. Bell and the court "did nothing wrong". If the state bar closes this complaint without investigation, it will indeed confirm institutional bias."
👇👇👇
The State Bar Responded:
"August 4, 2025
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
213-765-1215
DELIVERED VIA EMAIL TO Michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
RE: Case Numbers:
Respondents:
Dear Michael Bernard Taylor
24-O-15811
Danielle Marie Bell Lakshmi.Jagannath@calbar.ca.gov
By letter dated May 24, 2024, you were advised that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel had decided to close this matter. You were notified in our closing letter of your option to request that the State Bar's Complaint Review Unit review your complaint and the deadline for submitting the request was 90 days from the date of the closing letter. It appears you did not seek such review. Thereafter, our office received correspondence from you in August 2024, March 2025, and June 2025 containing similar allegations against the lawyer. Your recent correspondence presents no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint. Based on our prior review, the decision to close this file will stand. The State Bar cannot give you legal advice. If you wish to consult an attorney about any other remedies available to you, a certified lawyer referral service can provide the names of attorneys who may be able to assist you. In order to find a certified lawyer referral service, you may call our automated Lawyer Referral Services Directory at 1-866-442-2529 (toll free in California) or 415-538-2250 (from outside California) or access the State Bar's website at www.calbar.ca.gov and look for information on lawyer referral services. We would appreciate if you would complete a short, anonymous survey about your experience with f iling your complaint. While your responses to the survey will not change the outcome of the complaints you filed against the attorneys, the State Bar will use your answers to help improve the services we provide to the public. The survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HJGKWY7. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the State Bar. Sincerely, Lakshmi Jagannath Trial Counsel"
👇👇👇
Formal Objection to Material Mischaracterization and Procedural Irregularity in State Bar's Closure of Complaint 24-O-15811
From: Michael Bernard Taylor
RE: Rebuttal to Closure of Complaint 24-O-15811 – Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell / Constructive Abandonment by Vernon Patterson
Dear Ms. Jagannath #251212
This correspondence serves as a formal objection and demand for corrective action regarding the State Bar's August 4, 2025 communication purporting to close Complaint No. 24-O-15811. The response you issued contains multiple material mischaracterizations, omits critical factual elements, and fails to address the substance of concurrent allegations involving Attorney Vernon Patterson.
First and foremost, your letter asserts:
> "By letter dated May 24, 2024, you were advised that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel had decided to close this matter."
That assertion is both factually and procedurally inapplicable to my June 3, 2025 complaint, which stated in pertinent part:
> "Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell violated Judge Suzette Louise Clover's Court Order by submitting a confidential report as substantial evidence of incompetence, which triggered suspension of criminal proceedings and jurisdictional transfer before a fair evaluation as required by law. Daroca-Bell then declared a conflict of interest after violating the order in attempt to distance and/or absolve herself of legal liability. Because the court relied on inadmissible evidence that violated its own court order, judicial impartiality is lost and it is now imperative that the State Bar intervene to prevent further harm to me and my case. Daroca-Bell is Friends with Vernon Patterson, my current court-appointed attorney, on Facebook which suggests that he, too is materially limited in his ability to represent me and my interests. He has repeatedly stated that both Ms. Bell and the court 'did nothing wrong.' If the State Bar closes this complaint without investigation, it will indeed confirm institutional bias."
This filing was made in June 2025—not May 2024—and is substantively distinct from any prior submission. The attempt to conflate this complaint with unspecified previous correspondence in "August 2024, March 2025, and June 2025" constitutes a fatal procedural misstep and prejudicial administrative shortcut. The June 3, 2025 submission contains newly asserted violations directly related to Judge Clover's court order and materially distinct from any previously reviewed complaints.
Moreover, the June 3, 2025 complaint unmistakably included ethical allegations against both Danielle Daroca-Bell and Vernon Patterson. Yet, your response is conspicuously silent on the complaint's inclusion of Mr. Patterson's ongoing constructive abandonment, despite the fact that his conduct is inextricably intertwined with Ms. Daroca-Bell's misconduct. It is procedurally improper and legally indefensible for the State Bar to segregate related misconduct claims arising from the same operative facts while pretending the joint complaint pertained solely to Ms. Bell.
Your response also falsely states:
> "Your recent correspondence presents no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint."
This assertion misrepresents the June 3, 2025 complaint entirely, which was neither a request to reopen a closed complaint nor a reassertion of identical facts. Rather, it was a new and self-contained formal complaint with contemporaneous factual evidence and allegations of facially unlawful conduct by an officer of the court—namely, that Ms. Bell violated a sealed judicial order and enabled a jurisdictional transfer based on inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, tainting the entirety of the competency process.
To summarily dismiss the complaint without any indication of investigation, without assigning it a new complaint number, and while failing to respond to the substance of the allegations against Vernon Patterson—especially amidst an ongoing bench warrant status caused by constructive abandonment—is an abdication of the Bar's duty under Business & Professions Code §§ 6068 and 6090.5.
I hereby demand:
1. Immediate acknowledgment that Complaint 24-O-15811 as submitted on June 3, 2025 constitutes a new and distinct submission requiring independent review;
2. Written confirmation of the status of my formal complaint against Vernon Patterson, which was embedded in the same June 3, 2025 submission but has not been docketed or acknowledged;
3. That the Complaint Review Unit reassess the administrative missteps reflected in your August 4, 2025 letter, which materially distorts the timing, substance, and scope of the complaint on file.
Failure to acknowledge and correct these irregularities will result in formal notification to the California Supreme Court's Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, the Commission on Judicial Performance, and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, as these errors contribute to an expanding pattern of institutional bias and due process deprivation in my ongoing criminal matter.
Michael Bernard Taylor, Jr.
(626)817-6978 | michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025, 4:06 PM Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com> wrote:
Legend
✅️ Beginning of Thread
⬇️ New Thread
👇 Thread Continued
🛑 End of Thread
‼️ Key Information
✅️✅️✅️
FROM: Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov
TO: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
CC: Casey Lilienfeld • CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Sep 13, 2023, 12:28 PM
Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell #265746:
"A Diversion motion would require a psychological evaluation with a doctor that I would ask the court to appoint at no cost to you. The doctor would evaluate you with specific parameters addressing the factors for diversion set forth in PC 1001.36. Once we have that evaluation, I would prepare a motion, based on the evaluation of the psychologist appointed. The court would rule on the motion. I think you have a great shot at getting mental health diversion in this case, but I cannot guarantee it with 100% certainty."
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
10/2/2023
[COURT ORDER]
(SEALED & SUPPRESSED FROM DEFENDANT):
Judge Suzette Louise Clover:
"Court Order by Judge Suzette Louise Clover
(10/2/2023):
CONFIRMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
OCT 02 2023
David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
LAW OFFICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Danielle Daroca Bell, Deputy Public Defender
Bar No.: 265746
310 S. Walnut St., Ste 311
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 356-5471
Attorney for Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. GA111132
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIST/PSYCHOLOGIST
UNDER SEAL
GOOD cause having been shown, Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo
Psy.D., PACE No. 834041440
(626) 498-2133 (fax)
IS HEREBY APPOINTED as a confidential expert to examine all reports in the above-
entitled case, evaluate the defendant for mental health diversion pursuant to PC 1001.36 and consult with defense
counsel. The expert is appointed pursuant to Sections 730, 952, and 1001.36 of the California Evidence Code.
Pursuant to those sections, any reports generated as a result of the consultation will be confidential.
All costs incurred are to be paid by the County of Los Angeles. Dr. D'Ingillo shall be paid a rate of $750 for MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT
Signed: Hon. Judge Suzette Louise Clover"
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
FROM: Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov
TO: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
CC: Casey Lilienfeld • CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Oct 5, 2023, 12:29 PM
We have had several productive discussions regarding mental health diversion and that is a goal that we are actively working towards. Dr. D'Ingillo will be making contact with you to evaluate you for eligibility pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.36. We will work on a treatment plan that will be helpful for you in three ways: the dismissal of your case, mental health treatment and the avoidance of any jail time. We are working towards resolution. I don't want you to lose sight of that. I was under the impression after our last discussion in my office conference room and in court on Tuesday that you intended to pursue mental health diversion and so that is where I put my focus.
👇👇👇
Casey Lilienfeld • CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.govMichael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
CC: Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Oct 5, 2023, 12:53 PM
Mr. Taylor,
Ms. Bell advised me that your next court date is January 24, 2024. She expects to have the doctor's report by then and to have filed the motion for mental health diversion. She remains hopeful that the judge will grant it on the next court date. She and I join in your frustration that the judge denied the request to allow you to drive. We disagree with decision but it is not uncommon for attorneys to disagree with a ruling by the judge. We must, however, abide by it. If mental health diversion is granted, your permission to drive will be restored.
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
FROM: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
TO: Kristoffer McFarren • KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Jan 9, 2024, 4:18 AM
Good morning, Kristoffer and Danielle. Hope you are feeling better.
Are we game planning before court on January 24th or am I gonna be steamrolled once again? I spoke to the mental health diversion doctor a couple of days ago. He's supposed to call me back some time soon to complete his assessment.
I still intend to file a police report against the alleged victim for his deliberate threats against my life. It's a fucking shame I'm not safe in my own community smh.
If I have rights to be secured and protected from fear, intimidation, and physical harm caused by the activities of violent individuals and groups then there should be a challenge to the application of charges against me. Equal protection aside, the state Legislature gives me these rights as they do for all people.
We're all Americans here. I will not be discriminated to my face while you smart stupid people act like you don't see what's going on. Like I have to explain the obvious to you. Please don't put me thru that again. Take accountability for how intelligent you truly are and spare me the bureaucratic charades. My life is on the line here and I've been the most zealous defender in my case thus far.
You will not get by thinking all you gotta do is stand in for me. I seek every bit of the zealous defense due me and I'm not tolerating any gaslighting. If you gaslight me one more time I will openly address you whenever and wherever it happens.
I know what I'm talking about because I'm the one sending you the email after the holidays. You public defenders are well in over your own heads here. You were just gonna let the court day come with predetermined decisions.
And we will need to address Ms. Bell remaining my lawyer because after she stormed out of our last meeting AND the inference that she will still be my lawyer going forward makes me feel like you guys are determined to screw me over. She will be my lawyer if I say so. But you will not make these decisions for me if my lawyer is throwing tantrums during off the record meetings it's completely unacceptable. Prepare to explain to Judge Clover how you've guys been refusing to preserve my rights on the record against my wishes since arraignment.
And to give you some transparency, I am highly skeptical of the fact that mostly all of you in the public defenders office are religious C*tholics."C*tholics are bold and blasphemous people who give themselves authority to alter the oracles of God. C*tholics changed the sabbath day and politicizes religion beyond its normal context. In basic terms, being c*tholic or merely having a catholic past tells me you can wash people up and not lose sleep over it. C*tholics think they are saved by their rituals which is why you guys think all you have to do is steamroll me and nobody really cares. You tell me the bare minimum and instead of making sure I understand, you only care that you covered your basis. C*tholicism is a wrong religion. It's based on lies deceit and falsehoods just like the charges against me who come from other C*tholics in the prosecutor's office. Yall all just a bunch of Roman C*tholics who do the devil's bidding."
If I wake up everyday fighting to make a difference when it counts in the lives of others, what level of zeal do you think I intend to provide for myself?
I still intend to pursue diversion. But, potential discrimination in the application of law against me needs to be addressed in the court and on the record! No one gets away with professional misconduct. And what else am I to think if my own lawyer storms out of our meeting because I reject the prosecutor's so-called leverage? She stormed out of that office like a prosecutor who knew they lost but couldn't accept it.
We have too much to talk about for me to be the one contacting you yet you telling me I only have 2 options smh. I reject only having two options while I qualify for every form of civil protection one could have against these discriminatory charges.
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
2/14/24:
[PC 730 Competency Assessment by Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo]
(Dated 2/22/24, presented in court on 2/14/24, and filed 2/28/24):
"FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
FEB 28 2024
David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
BY: M. Alaberkyan, Deputy
Pietro "Piero" D'Ingillo, Psy.D
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist- CA License 19141
Cell 323-573-0191
Fax 310-295-3131
PC 730 EVALUATION
February 22, 2024
Hon. Suzette Clover, Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
Pasadena, Dept. F
300 N. Walnut St.
RE: TAYLOR, Michael
Case No.: GA111132
Counsel for Respondent: D. Daroca, Deputy Public Defender
DOB: 01/19/1990
Date of Evaluation: 01/05/2024 and 01/18/2024
Dear Judge Clover:
Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 10/02/2024, I have evaluated Mr. Taylor for the purpose of a Penal Code (PC) 730 Competency Assessment.
Statement of Non-Confidentiality: The defendant was explained and understood
aspects of non-confidentiality inherent in this evaluation. He comprehended that a
report will be written for the Court discussing our interview.
Sources of Information: The following data was reviewed prior to telephonically
interviewing the defendant on 01/05/2024 and 01/18/2024, as he is living in Seattle,
Washington. E-mail correspondence from Ms. Daroca, Minute Order, Arrest Report and
Medical Records.
Summary of Opinion:
A. The defendant has a major mental disease, disorder, or defect.
B. The defendant is not competent (see report).
Background Information:
Per DPD Daroca, Mr. Taylor has been diagnosed with a neurological condition and during interactions with her, he has exhibited questionable reasoning and impulse control. Past attorney and client interactions have required termination because the defendant engaged emotionally explosively and insultingly towards his defense counsel.
DPD Daroca forwarded to this examiner an email message sent to her by the defendant on 01/09/2024. This occurred after the telephonic interview involving the defendant and this examiner, which took place on 01/05/2024. Mr. Taylor indicates in the email message that he is being intentionally poorly represented by defense counsel. He expands his dissatisfaction and skepticism of receiving proper legal representation to his belief that most of the deputy public defender attorneys in the Public Defender's Office are practicing Catholics. In an illogical change of topic of discussion, he describes:
"Catholics are bold and blasphemous people who give themselves authority to alter the oracles of God. Catholics changed the sabbath day and politicizes religion beyond its normal context. In basic terms, being catholic or merely having a catholic past tells me you can waste people up and not lose sleep over it. Catholics think they are saved by their rituals which is why you guys think all you have to do is brainroll me and nobody really cares. You tell me the bare minimum and instead of making sure I understand, you only care that you covered your basis. Catholicism is a strong religion. It is based on lies deceit and falsehood. just like the charges against me who come from other catholics in the prosecutor's office. Yall all just a bunch of Roman Catholics who do the devil's bidding."
The defendant is currently charged with:
-Attempted Murder
Summary of Arrest Report
On 11/16/2021, police officers responded to a call of a person being dragged by a car and the vehicle involved had left the scene. The male victim sustained major injuries and was transported to the hospital. According to a witness, the driver was parking his car in a parking lot and struck the side of another parked car. The driver tried leaving the scene, but was confronted by one of the occupants of the car that had been struck. The driver repeatedly refused to remain on scene and the man from the car that had been struck tried various methods to prevent him from leaving. The driver reportedly struck the man and caused him injuries. The car of the defendant was later found empty near the location of the incident and the defendant was also identified, and ultimately detained for questioning.
Signed: Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo"
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
2/14/24
[MINUTE ORDER]
"SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Criminal Division
Pasadena Dept. - F
XNEGA111132-01
The People of the State of California
vs.
TAYLOR, MICHAEL BERNARD J
Honorable Suzette Clover, Judge
J. Diaz, Judicial Assistant
February 14, 2024
8:30 AM
Verlaine Turner (#6201), Court Reporter
PC664-187(a), VC20001(b)(2), VC20002(a)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Pretrial Conference/Trial Setting
The following parties are present for the aforementioned proceeding:
MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR, Defendant
Danielle Marie Bell, Deputy Public Defender
William S. Park, Deputy District Attorney
The matter is called for Pretrial Conference/Trial Setting.
Defense counsel declares a doubt as to the Defendant's mental competence pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Criminal proceedings are suspended.
A county approved psychiatrist is appointed pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to examine the Defendant and prepare a report on the Defendant's current mental status within the meaning of Penal Code section 1368.
The Court orders the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to allow the appointed doctor(s) to have access to a laptop computer during the interview.
A packet of documents including a copy of the minute order declaring a doubt, a copy of the accusatory pleading (complaint, information, or citation), a copy of the arrest report, a copy of the booking (if the defendant is out of custody on bond), and a copy of Los Angeles County Pretrial Release Program form (LOSC CRIM 302) (if the defendant is out of custody on Supervised Released Program) is ordered transferred to the Mental Health Division via the case management system to the Mental Health resource account within 24 hours of this order.
A copy of the arrest report must be sent separately to the Mental Health Division via the Mental Health resource account.
Defense counsel states that the defendant is unable to assist her with this case and declares a doubt.
The people's oral request for the defendant to be remanded is heard, argued, and denied.
Defendant is admonished to keep in contact with their attorney if there is any issues.
On Court's motion, 1368 PC Competency Hearing is set for Wednesday, February 28, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Mental Health PC1368.
The Defendant is ordered to return on the above date. Defendant Bond Posted. Cash Bail : LAB672360002, Bond to Stand"
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
FROM: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
TO: Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Kristoffer McFarren • KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Samantha Arensdorff • SArensdorff@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Feb 15, 2024, 7:40 PM
Good evening.
Thank you for your help in court yesterday. I've done some additional research and have found that while diverting a client away from prison time can be beneficial, it should not come at the expense of ignoring or failing to address violations of their constitutional rights. If a public defender allows their client's constitutional rights to be violated without addressing it on the record, it could be considered ineffective counsel. It's the duty of defense counsel to advocate for their client's rights and ensure due process is followed throughout the legal proceedings.
I can't seem to get around the fact that the charges against me only have life because discrimination by race has not been raised at any point in these proceedings. Furthermore, the transfer to mental health court seems to have been a predetermined decision that does not address my constitutional rights regarding the application of law against me. Something that should have been raised at preliminary AND or pretrial stages.
A refusal to preserve these rights poses a direct threat to due process and its just not adding up because while public defenders may have a way of doing things, you are still obligated to defend the constitutional rights of defendants. To refuse to defend these rights gives prosecutors right of way to charge people of their districts with prejudice. To refuse to assert these rights says that you essentially agree with the charges. You have a duty to protect people from these unlawful abuses of power by your BAR colleagues. These are not lawful practices. It just has not been exposed because you guys specialize in diverting attention idk.
I want to encourage you to research the case law examples I emailed over because if I'm truly a responsible person then I'm going to want things done right. Same goes for you.
‼️ Also, I'd like a copy of the report by the doctor that recommends the transfer to mental health court please. I just want to understand my case so I can defend myself the best way possible.
I just need you guys to know that not defending my constitutional rights is not really an option unless you are denying me due process, which you have no duty or obligation to do. So, I'm asking you to do right by me. After all, you guys are kind of the reason why I'm still in this sticky situation when I've had a clear way out this entire time! Perhaps ineffective assistance of counsel has long been in effect in my case. I have every reason to believe it and I don't appreciate you guys constantly playing me like I'm not understanding how this is all playing out.
My constitutional rights MUST be defended on the record before this case can proceed and will need to be brought to the judge's attention as soon as possible.
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
2/28/24
[MINUTE ORDER]
"SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Mental Health Division
Hollywood Courthouse Department 213
XNEGA111132-01
The People of the State of California
vs.
TAYLOR, MICHAEL BERNARD J
Honorable Ronald Owen Kaye, Judge
Brenda Magdaleno, Judicial Assistant
February 28, 2024
8:30 AM
Maria DeLuna (#13986), Court Reporter(s)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1368 PC Competency Hearing Bond to Stand, Complaint Received filed on 2/14/2024, by, filed on 2/14/2024, by
The following parties are present in Court:
Michael Herman Salmaggi, Deputy Public Defender
Sharon Leonette Ransom, Deputy District Attorney
Defendant is not present. Appearance is waived.
The matter is called for hearing. On Defendant's motion, the matter is continued to the date and time indicated below.
The Court sets a 1368 PC Competency Hearing on March 8, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Courthouse Department 213.
MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR is ordered to appear at the next hearing.
The Court orders the bond to stand.
Minute Order
Page 1 of 1"
🛑🛑🛑
⬇️⬇️⬇️
FROM: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
Mar 11, 2024, 10:40 AM
I am not supposed to be fighting with my public defenders to uphold my rights while facing criminal charges.
They cannot file a psych evaluation on me in retaliation for asserting my constitutional rights.
The public defenders office cannot just declare an invalid conflict of interest in two courts at the same time while not letting me know the reason or nature of the reason.
I implore the LA County board of supervisors to investigate this issue.
👇👇👇
FROM: Barger, Kathryn • Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov
TO: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
Barger, Kathryn • Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov
First District • firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
Third District • ThirdDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
Mar 11, 2024, 11:51 AM
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for your recent message. Your concerns are important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to help address them.
Please provide us with a phoen number and your current home address in order for us to determine the appropriate Supervisorial District that may assist you.
Thank you for writing and granting me an opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
👇👇👇
Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com
Barger, Kathryn • Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov
Mar 11, 2024, 11:55 AM
Thank you for your response. My information is as follows below:
Michael Taylor
(626)817-6978
Please let me know if there is anymore information I can provide.
Thank you
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:52 PM
To: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office <info@da.lacounty.gov>; Info Account <info@georgegascon.org>; Marcus M. Huntley <mhuntley@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Kristoffer McFarren <KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Christian Le <cle@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Noah Cox <NCox@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Hollis Potts <hpotts@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Linda Eby <LEby@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Danielle Daroca <dbell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Michael H. Salmaggi <msalmaggi@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Hannah Mandel <hmandel@apd.lacounty.gov>; GPDPIO@glendaleca.gov
Cc: ptl@calbar.ca.gov; info@calawyers.org; Barger, Kathryn <kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov>; tips@cnn.com; ktla@ktla.com; abanews@americanbar.org; news.tribune@sgvn.com; news.star-news@sgvn.com; Davan.Maharaj@latimes.com; Artin Yadegarian <artin@yadegarianlaw.com>; art.wilson@sgvn.com
Subject: [External]RE: Prosecutorial Discretion Does Not Give Prosecutors The Authority To Charge People Based On Their Race + Police Departments Intentionally Omitting Details or Manipulating Evidence To Protect The Racial Demographics of a Particular Area Wou...
If a prosecutor omits critical details in police reports pertaining to the complaining witness's direct participation in the incident in question, does this undermine the defendant's constitutional rights?
If a prosecutor omits critical details in police reports pertaining to the complaining witness's direct participation in the incident in question, it could potentially undermine the defendant's constitutional rights. Specifically, it could violate the defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment
Share Your Thoughts