EXHIBIT B-3 (2.14.24) [MINUTE ORDER] Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-3: February 14, 2024 Minute Order — Competency Proceedings Initiated Without Lawful Basis

Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Minute Order Dated February 14, 2024

> 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.

On Court's motion, 1368 PC Competency Hearing is set for Wednesday, February 28, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Mental Health PC1368.

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This February 14, 2024 minute order represents a pivotal procedural event in the People v. Michael Taylor case: the first official court record of Penal Code §1368 proceedings. However, this minute order was generated after a PC §730 competency evaluation had already been conducted — a fact that undermines its legitimacy and creates a retroactive attempt to justify prior procedural violations.

Key Legal Conflicts:

1. Retrospective Justification of Unlawful Evaluation

According to Exhibit B-2, Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo evaluated the defendant on January 5 and January 18, 2024.

Yet the declaration of doubt and suspension of proceedings under PC §1368 did not occur until February 14, 2024, nearly a month later.

Under Penal Code §1368(b), a court may only order a psychiatric evaluation for competency after it declares doubt. Any evaluation conducted before that declaration lacks statutory authority and is void ab initio (invalid from the outset).

2. Violation of Due Process

By admitting and acting on a pre-existing evaluation obtained without judicial declaration of doubt, the court violated the defendant’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The evaluation was not merely premature — it predicated state action (hospitalization, suspension of proceedings) on an unlawful predicate, directly implicating Jackson v. Indiana (1972) and Pate v. Robinson (1966).

3. Improper Use of Evidence Code §730

Evidence Code §730 allows for court-appointed experts, but does not override the requirements of PC §1368 for competency proceedings.

Here, §730 was misapplied to give the appearance of legitimacy to a prior evaluation that was outside the statutory timeline and beyond the scope of prior sealed orders (see Exhibit B-1).

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This minute order tells the court record: “We’re just now deciding that Mr. Taylor may not be competent to stand trial.” But here’s the problem — the doctor had already done the evaluation a month earlier and told the judge Mr. Taylor wasn’t competent.

How could a doctor legally evaluate someone’s competency before the court had officially said it had doubts? It’s like sentencing someone before the trial starts. It reverses the legal process.

In simple terms:

The doctor made a report in January.

The judge didn’t say anything about mental competency until mid-February.

Then the court acted as if it had ordered the evaluation all along.

That’s not how the law works. The court must first say there’s a problem, then order an evaluation — not the other way around. Otherwise, people can be declared mentally unfit without any legal hearing at all.

This minute order attempts to fix a mistake that had already happened, but it can't undo the damage of violating due process rights that are protected under the Constitution.

---

🔹 Implication for the Dossier

This exhibit (B-3) confirms and timestamps the due process violation that occurred in Exhibit B-2. The court’s declaration of doubt came after the unlawful evaluation, making this record a post-hoc attempt to sanitize a contaminated process.

This will be critical to proving:

No judicial authority existed when Dr. D'Ingillo conducted his PC §730 competency evaluation.

All resulting court actions (including hospitalization, medication, and suspension of trial) are procedurally tainted and subject to challenge.

THE VERNON PATTERSON DOSSIER EXHIBIT INDEX:

EXHIBITS A: COMMUNICATIONS

• Exhibit A-1 (4/8/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson Admits No Court Order for PC 730 Competency Assessment
• Exhibit A-2 (5/8/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt
• Exhibit A-3 (5/12/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Declares Unlawful State Hospital Commitment a “Non-Issue”
• Exhibit A-4 (5/13/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Denies Relevance of Missing Court Order While Scheduling New Competency Exam
• Exhibit A-5 (5/14/25): [COURT ORDER] Vernon Patterson Materializes Threat to Re-Evaluate Defendant Without Correcting Prior Fraud
• Exhibit A-6 (5/15/25): [SMS] Defendant Rejects Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation; Patterson Refuses to Answer Jurisdictional Challenge
• Exhibit A-7 (5/23/25): [SMS] Judge Michael Carter Leverages Executive Authority Despite Lacking Jurisdiction; Patterson Weaponizes Silence
• Exhibit A-8 (5/28/25): [SMS] Defendant Demands Consent Waiver and Dismantles Cover-Up
• Exhibit A-9 (6/3/25): [EMAIL] Vernon Patterson’s Constructive Abandonment and Weaponized Incompetency Allegations
• Exhibit A-10 (6/23/25): [SMS] Vernon Patterson Folds! Withdraws Representation Without Due Process

EXHIBITS B: TRANSCRIPTS

• Exhibit B-1 (10/2/23) [SMS] Judge Suzette Clover Appoints Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo As Confidential Expert for Mental Health Diversion (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-2 (2/14/24) [EVALUATION] Unauthorized Competency Report Submitted in Violation of Court Order and Statutory Privileges (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-3 (2/14/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-4 (2/28/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Appearance Waived, New Judge Assigned, Competency Hearing Continued W/O Jurisdictional Clarity (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-5 (5/1/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Withholds Consent Pending Constitutional Challenge — Evaluation Aborted (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-6 (6/21/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Defendant Refuses Evaluation Until Prior Due Process Violation Is Cured — No Opinion Rendered (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-7 (8/30/24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Involuntary Medication Order Recommended Solely on Records and Prior Contested Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-8 (8/30/24) [MINUTE ORDER] Judicial Authorization of Forced Medication, Voter Disqualification, and Broad HIPAA Disclosure Without Procedural Redress (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit B-9 (5/14/24) [COURT ORDER] Court Authorizes Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation at Defense Request Following Accusations of Constructive Abandonment and Due Process Violations (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

EXHIBITS C: REDRESS

• Exhibit C-1 (4.28.24) [COMPLAINT] Material Falsehoods & Constructive Ratification by The California State Bar (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-2 (3/20/24) CJP Complaint on Judge Clover (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-3 (3/18/25) [EMAIL] DSH Engages In Constructive Ratification of Fraud by Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-4 (5/15/25) [EMAIL] Sydney Kamlager-Dove Engages In Constructive Abandonment of Constituent Amidst Judicial Fraud (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-5 (4/8/24) [EMAIL] The Cochran Firm Declines Representation; Mandatory Reporting Duties Still Implied (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-6 (5/18/25) [EMAIL] ACLU of Southern California – Declination, Constructive Notice, and Failure of Mandated Reporting Duties (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-7 (6/10/25) [EMAIL] Judicial Acknowledgment of Fraud Upon The Court By 2nd Appellate District Court of California (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-8 (6/15/25) [EMAIL] Trump's DOJ Endorses Constructive Judicial Misconduct That Originated Under Biden (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-9 (6/22/25) [EMAIL] Congresswoman Judy Chu Receives Formal Complaint of Fraud Upon The Court After DOJ Closed Complaint (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)
• Exhibit C-10 (7/1/25) [LAWSUIT] California Attorney General Rob Bonta Violates Equal Protection of Defendant Michael Taylor (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)