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)

Exhibit B-9: May 14, 2025 — Ex Parte Order Securing Defense-Only Evaluation by Dr. Jack Rothberg

Court Authorizes Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation at Defense Request Following Accusations of Constructive Abandonment and Due Process Violations

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Court Order (Filed May 14, 2025)

> "COURT ORDER EX PARTE

Date: MAY 14 2025

Order: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Jack Rothberg, M.D., 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 857-8000 is appointed to evaluate Mr. Michael Taylor.

Stipulation: Said expert is to make available all findings and reports to the defense only, to consult confidentially with defense counsel, Vernon L. Patterson, and to testify, if necessary, at trial or other pertinent proceedings in this case.

Judge of the Superior Court

MICHAEL D. CARTER, JUDGE"

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This court order represents a defensive procedural maneuver by court-appointed counsel Vernon L. Patterson (#163816) in response to mounting challenges to his representation, particularly the issues raised throughout Exhibit A — including the unlawful misuse of the October 2, 2023 sealed order (Exhibit B-1) and the tainted competency findings by Dr. D’Ingillo (Exhibit B-2).

1. Ex Parte Defense Evaluation

The order appoints Dr. Jack Rothberg, M.D. to evaluate Mr. Taylor solely for the benefit of the defense, with express terms that the report remain confidential and not shared with the prosecution or court absent waiver or trial necessity.

This differs materially from prior evaluations (e.g., D’Ingillo, Tumu, Knapke), which were submitted directly to the court under PC 730 and used against Mr. Taylor without his consent, contrary to the original sealed intent of the October 2, 2023 order (see Exhibit B-1).

2. Inferred Strategic Motive

This order validates Mr. Taylor’s long-standing argument that any evaluation must be clearly authorized, defense-directed, and confidentiality-protected — not unilaterally weaponized by the state.

Yet this order also undermines Patterson’s credibility, because prior to this filing, he:

Denied the need for a new court order (Exhibit A communications, esp. 5/28/25 and 6/3/25),

Refused to confirm any violation occurred in Dr. D’Ingillo’s use of sealed authority (Exhibit A-9),

Refused to obtain or produce a valid waiver of attorney-client or psychotherapist-patient privilege for the prior evaluation (Exhibit A-10).

By initiating this order, Patterson tacitly acknowledges that prior procedure was improper — while simultaneously avoiding accountability for his previous failures to suppress the D’Ingillo evaluation.

3. Ex Parte Filing Context

The ex parte nature of this request, filed outside the presence of the defendant, is legally permissible but raises red flags in this case due to Patterson’s history of unilateral representation without informed consent, detailed across Exhibit A.

It aligns with his threat on 5/28/25:

> “Let me know when you want to surrender. I want to explain to the court why you feel it is necessary to stop proceedings until competency issues have been addressed…”

As noted in Mr. Taylor’s response (Exhibit A-8), Patterson’s insistence that Taylor surrender before addressing outstanding rights violations was rejected as a coercive tactic. This ex parte filing — made without resolving those violations — advances that same tactic through procedural artifice.

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This court order shows that even Mr. Patterson — the lawyer accused of misconduct — eventually went and got a new doctor to evaluate his client, just for the defense.

Why would he do that?

Because the previous evaluation (which got Michael forced into medication and jail) was based on a court order that was sealed — meaning it wasn’t supposed to be used in open court. But they used it anyway. And when Michael called them out, they called him “incompetent.”

Now that Patterson sees this is legally indefensible, he quietly filed this order with a new doctor. But notice:

He didn’t admit the first evaluation was flawed.

He didn’t tell the court that Michael never consented to the first evaluation.

He didn’t try to fix what went wrong — just paper over it with a new doctor.

This is like breaking the rules, getting caught, and then trying to fix it secretly — without admitting guilt.

It proves the rules matter — and that someone in the courtroom finally recognized that what happened before wasn’t legal.

---

🔹 Implication for the Dossier

Exhibit B-9 affirms a central claim in the Dossier: that the defense team itself recognized the foundational illegitimacy of earlier competency proceedings. Rather than correct the record or seek to suppress the defective D’Ingillo assessment (see Exhibit B-2), Mr. Patterson attempted a procedural reset without addressing the due process violations already on record.

This ex parte order:

Confirms the necessity of defense-only evaluations,

Exposes the legal hypocrisy of Vernon Patterson’s prior assertions, and

Establishes evidentiary grounds for retroactive suppression or reversal of any determinations relying on the initial improper evaluations.

It is therefore a critical pivot point in the larger narrative of People v. Michael Taylor, substantiating the defendant’s constitutional objections and fortifying the claim of systemic legal breach under color of law.

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)