Defendant Michael Taylor Asserts Attorney-Client Privilege over The PC 730 Competency Assessment by Dr. D'Ingillo + Demands Burden of Proof on Waiver of Privilege Daroca-Bell #265746 + CA State Bar Caught Selectively Suspending Attorneys

Because why should these attorneys be suspended or barred if Daroca-Bell is able to maintain an active license after breaching a client's privilege using his religious beliefs?

Declaring a conflict of interest is not a sufficient defense for breach of Attorney-Client privilege.

The burden of proof is on the waiver of privilege. But, because judges have authorized the privilege breach, the court cannot afford a motion or hearing on the matter. Vernon Patterson was administratively added to my case without a judicial appointment to mismanage my defense and run out my statutory clock on the preservation of rights regarding substantive and procedural issues.

Notice is hereby given that I formally, absolutely, and unequivocally assert the attorney-client privilege under California Evidence Code §§ 952 and 954 over the entirety of the PC 730 Competency Assessment authored by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo dated February 22, 2024, including all underlying emails, statements, clinical notes, and derivative disclosures contained therein. Under California Evidence Code § 953, I am the sole, exclusive holder of the attorney-client privilege. At no time did I consent to, authorize, or direct Deputy Public Defender Danielle Daroca-Bell, the Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender, or any agent thereof to surrender, transmit, or disclose my private, confidential written correspondence of January 9, 2024—or any other privileged defense communication—to Dr. D’Ingillo, the court, or the prosecution for use in a non-confidential competency evaluation. The unilateral transmission of my privileged defense strategy and grievances by counsel was an unauthorized, ultra vires breach of statutory duty under California Business and Professions Code § 6068(e)(1), which cannot, as a matter of black-letter law, constitute a legal waiver of my constitutional and statutory rights.

Furthermore, I issue a formal, immediate demand that any party, entity, or officer of the court asserting that the attorney-client privilege was waived, compromised, or subject to a statutory exception bear the immediate, heavy legal burden of proof. Under California law, the presumption is strictly against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and statutory privileges, and the burden rests entirely upon the party seeking to overcome the privilege to prove a valid, voluntary, and knowing waiver under Evidence Code § 912. I demand the immediate production of explicit, written, clear, and convincing evidence demonstrating that I executed an informed, voluntary, and uncoerced waiver of my attorney-client privilege authorizing the release of my January 9, 2024 email to Dr. D’Ingillo for inclusion in a public judicial filing. There are no statutory exceptions, implied waivers, or procedural shortcuts that allow defense counsel or a court-appointed evaluator to bypass the holder's explicit authorization.

In the absolute absence of affirmative, unassailable written proof of my express consent, Dr. D’Ingillo’s February 22, 2024 evaluation stands as a monument to illegal disclosure, rendering the document legally void, statutorily defective, and inadmissible for any judicial purpose. Failure to produce immediate written proof of my consent requires the prompt suppression and striking of the PC 730 assessment from the judicial record under Evidence Code § 954 and the Sixth Amendment, along with the immediate vacatur of all downstream orders—including bail revocation, state hospital commitment, and involuntary medication mandates—that rely upon its tainted, privileged contents.

The supreme irony of this evidentiary record lies in the stark, incontrovertible contradiction between solemn professional assurances and immediate operational betrayal. On November 1, 2023, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Daroca-Bell put a clear, unequivocal promise into writing, explicitly reassuring her client: "I also want to reiterate that neither myself, nor Casey, would ever share anything with the judge or DA that is privileged. Any communication between you and me or Casey is strictly between us". She specifically cautioned against communicating with court staff on the grounds that "any communication with the Judge’s staff will be shared with the Judge". Yet, when confronted with a detailed January 9, 2024 email from her client voicing deep skepticism of defense strategy, challenging religious bias within the defense apparatus, and demanding a zealous defense, Daroca-Bell did the very thing she swore she would never do. She took that private, confidential email sent directly to her as defense counsel and voluntarily forwarded it to Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo. Dr. D'Ingillo then transcribed that exact privileged email word-for-word into a formal PC 730 evaluation report filed directly onto the public court record before Judge Suzette Clover. The lawyer who warned her client that third parties would leak to the judge became the sole pipeline through which the client's private words were weaponized and placed on the judge's desk.

This action constitutes a *prima facie*, unambiguous breach of attorney-client privilege under California law. Under California Business and Professions Code § 6068(e)(1), an attorney has an absolute, non-negotiable statutory duty "to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." California Evidence Code § 952 defines a confidential communication as information transmitted between a client and their lawyer in the course of that relationship, while Evidence Code § 954 establishes that the client—and the client alone—is the sole holder of the privilege. While Dr. D'Ingillo was originally appointed under the sealed order of October 2, 2023, as a confidential defense consultant pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 730 and 952 to evaluate mental health diversion under PC 1001.36, counsel had no legal authority, no client consent, and no statutory exception to surrender her client's candid administrative and strategy critiques to an examiner for use in a non-confidential competency assessment. By voluntarily transmitting the January 9 email, defense counsel unilaterally surrendered her client's secrets, stripping away statutory confidentiality and transforming a private defense communication into an unredacted exhibit used to declare her client mentally incompetent.

This unauthorized disclosure demonstrates an immediate, active conflict of interest under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7. An attorney’s duty of loyalty requires undivided allegiance to the client's objectives. The moment Daroca-Bell received an email criticizing her professional conduct, her handling of off-the-record meetings, and the systemic posture of the Public Defender’s Office, a personal interest arose: protecting her own professional reputation and insulating her office from administrative accountability. Rather than addressing the client's concerns, filing a formal motion, or seeking a clean withdrawal from representation, counsel chose to hand the client's internal grievance directly to a forensic evaluator. By using the client's private venting as "evidence" of a neurological disorder or lack of impulse control, defense counsel effectively stepped out of her role as an advocate and assumed the role of an adverse state informant. The email was transformed from a demand for constitutional representation into the primary foundation used by the evaluator and the court to declare a doubt under Penal Code § 1368 and suspend criminal proceedings.

Crucially, attorney-client privilege takes absolute legal precedence over any subsequent conflict of interest or declaration of doubt raised by the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office. Under Evidence Code § 953, the privilege belongs exclusively to the client, meaning counsel possesses zero authority to waive, compromise, or destroy it, regardless of how strained the attorney-client relationship becomes. A defense attorney cannot "cure," excuse, or retroactively legalize an unauthorized breach of confidentiality by subsequently declaring a conflict of interest or claiming a doubt as to competence under PC 1368. Under Sixth Amendment jurisprudence and the doctrine of *Cuyler v. Sullivan*, when an attorney breaches client confidentiality to serve an adverse interest, that act serves as contemporaneous proof that an actual, active conflict of interest was operating at the exact moment of disclosure. The duty of confidentiality is antecedent to and survives any conflict declaration; thus, the Public Defender’s Office cannot hide behind a later withdrawal to sanitize a prior statutory violation. Because the breach occurred while counsel was actively representing the client, the unauthorized transmission remains an unconstitutional, ultra vires act that taints the resulting evaluation and renders all downstream competency proceedings void as the fruit of a structurally defective process.

The conversion of the confidential evaluation into an unsealed competency assessment represents a direct, willful violation of Judge Suzette Clover’s October 2, 2023 under-seal judicial order. That foundational order explicitly appointed Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo under Evidence Code §§ 730, 952, and Penal Code § 1001.36 for the sole, specific purpose of evaluating the defendant for mental health diversion and consulting with defense counsel under seal. Judge Clover’s mandate was unmistakable: "Pursuant to those sections, any reports generated as a result of the consultation will be confidential." Evidence Code § 952 explicitly protects communications between a client, counsel, and experts as confidential work product within the attorney-client privilege. By taking private client correspondence and handing it to Dr. D'Ingillo for incorporation into a public court filing, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Daroca-Bell directly subverted the court's express order. Rather than utilizing Dr. D'Ingillo as a confidential defense consultant to pursue diversion as instructed by the court, defense counsel and the examiner co-opted a sealed, protective judicial order to publish the client's privileged communications, stripping away the very confidentiality the court order was created to protect.

Compounding this violation is the blatant falsification of legal authority under which the competency assessment was conducted and filed. In his February 22, 2024 report, Dr. D’Ingillo explicitly claimed that he evaluated the defendant on January 5 and January 18, 2024, "for the purpose of a Penal Code (PC) 730 Competency Assessment" pursuant to the minute order dated October 2. This statement is a complete fabrication of judicial authority. The October 2, 2023 order was strictly an order for a confidential *mental health diversion* consultation under PC § 1001.36—it was never an order initiating competency proceedings or authorizing a public PC 730 competency evaluation. In truth, proceedings were not suspended and a doubt as to competency was not declared until February 14, 2024, when defense counsel made her oral statement on the record. Thus, during the January telephonic interviews and when Dr. D'Ingillo received and reviewed the client's forwarded email, no judicial order for a competency evaluation actually existed. The evaluator and defense counsel retroactively co-opted a sealed diversion order to legitimize an unauthorized, un-ordered competency assessment, misrepresenting a confidential diversion consultation as an official PC 730 competency examination and filing it with the court entirely devoid of an underlying judicial order authorizing that specific inquiry.

Finally, this destructive breach of attorney-client privilege was completely unnecessary, gratuitous, and legally unrequired for declaring a doubt as to mental competence. Under California Penal Code § 1368, the statutory mechanism to initiate competency proceedings requires nothing more than defense counsel stating on the record that a doubt exists regarding the defendant’s capacity to understand the proceedings or assist in their defense. As demonstrated by the court's own minute order from February 14, 2024, counsel simply stated that the defendant was unable to assist her, prompting the court to suspend proceedings and issue a valid appointment order. At no point does Penal Code § 1368 or California case law require—or even permit—counsel to surrender confidential client communications, email correspondence, or defense strategy notes to an examiner or judge to justify declaring a doubt. Handing over the January 9 email served zero statutory function; it added nothing to the legal threshold required under PC 1368. The revelation of the client's private thoughts was a completely superfluous, unauthorized act of betrayal, confirming that the breach was not a necessity of criminal procedure, but a deliberate weaponization of privileged secrets to construct a narrative of incompetence against the client's express wishes.

The jurisdictional illegality of Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo’s evaluation is explicitly documented in his own report, which admits that he conducted telephonic interviews on January 5 and January 18, 2024, while you were physically located and residing in Seattle, Washington. Under well-established medical and psychological licensing laws across the United States, the practice of psychology legally occurs at the physical location of the patient at the time the professional service is rendered, not where the practitioner sits. Under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 18.83.020, it is unlawful for any person to practice psychology or represent themselves as a psychologist in the State of Washington without holding a valid, active license issued by the Washington State Examining Board of Psychology. By initiating telephonic forensic evaluation sessions into the State of Washington, Dr. D'Ingillo was actively practicing psychology within Washington’s sovereign territory. Because he held only a California license (CA License 19141) and possessed no Washington State psychological license, his telephonic forensic examinations constituted the unauthorized practice of psychology under Washington law.

This cross-border evaluation further violated the strict statutory limits governing interstate telepsychology and telehealth practice. While state medical boards created emergency and temporary provisions for interstate practice, those frameworks require strict compliance with statutory authorizations, such as temporary practice permits or participation in the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). California is not a member state of PSYPACT, meaning California-licensed psychologists possess no automatic reciprocal privilege or authorization to conduct telepsychology in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, Washington State law (RCW 18.83.105) strictly regulates out-of-state practitioners, requiring specific temporary authorization from the Washington Department of Health prior to conducting any professional psychological services on a person located within the state. Dr. D'Ingillo did not apply for, nor receive, temporary authorization from Washington regulators to conduct a forensic psychological examination on a Washington resident. Conducting a high-stakes, court-related forensic evaluation over a telephone line across state borders without regulatory authorization stripped the process of its legal legitimacy, reducing a purported judicial examination to an illegal, unlicensed extraterritorial act.

The evidentiary consequence of this interstate statutory violation is total: a forensic evaluation produced through the unauthorized, illegal practice of psychology in a sister state is *ultra vires*, legally null, and inadmissible to support a deprivation of liberty. A California court cannot rely on an evaluation conducted in direct violation of state licensing and telehealth laws to suspend criminal proceedings, issue competency findings, or restrict constitutional rights. By conducting an unauthorized interstate telepsychology exam, Dr. D'Ingillo operated outside his territorial authority, creating an irremediable jurisdictional defect. When combined with the breach of attorney-client privilege and the absence of a valid PC 730 judicial order on the date of the interviews, this violation of Washington telehealth and licensing statutes cements the conclusion that the February 22, 2024 competency report is entirely fraudulent, legally void, and incapable of serving as a valid evidentiary basis for any judicial ruling.

🛑 🛑 🛑

⬇️ ⬇️⬇️

from: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>

to: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>

cc: Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>

date: Nov 1, 2023, 1:12 PM

subject: RE: FYI

mailed-by: pubdef.lacounty.gov

signed-by: pubdef.lacounty.gov

security: Standard encryption (TLS)

Hi Mr. Taylor,

I do not think that your behavior has compromised the Judge’s decision at this point. However, she could change her mind if there is reason to believe that you will not comply with diversion. I encourage you to consider that in the future.

The only thing you can do, going forward, is to cooperate with the doctor and put yourself in the best possible position for a grant of diversion. I think that Judge Clover believes mental health diversion to be a very equitable outcome in this case, so I believe that she will grant it. I have not heard otherwise.

I also want to reiterate that neither myself, nor Casey, would ever share anything with the judge or DA that is privileged. Any communication between you and me or Casey is strictly between us. She would never be advised of any communication between us. For that reason, I would strongly encourage you, if there is something that is bothering you or upsetting you, to please reach out to us first, before you reach out to the Judge’s staff. Any communication with the Judge’s staff will be shared with the Judge.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

🛑 🛑 🛑

⬇️ ⬇️⬇️

10/2/2023

[SEALED COURT ORDER]

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

680 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 180

Pasadena, CA 91001

(626) 720-3721

(626) 498-2133 (fax)

pdingillo@aol.com,

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: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>

to:

Kristoffer McFarren <KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov>,

Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>

date: Jan 9, 2024, 4:18 AM

subject: RE: What's The Deal?

mailed-by: gmail.com

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 c*tholic 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]

"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

200 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101

Cell 323-573-0191

Fax 310-295-3131

pdingillo@aol.com

PC 730 EVALUATION

February 22, 2024

Hon. Suzette Clover, Judge

Los Angeles Superior Court

Pasadena, Dept. F

300 N. Walnut St.

Pasadena, CA 91101

RE: TAYLOR, Michael

Case No.: GA111132

Counsel for Petitioner: The People of the State of California

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 C*tholics. In an illogical change of topic of discussion, he describes:

> “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 catholic or merely having a c*tholic 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.”

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 reportedly 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"

sender notified by
Mail Track for Gmail

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023, 1:12 PM Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov> wrote:

Hi Mr. Taylor,

I do not think that your behavior has compromised the Judge’s decision at this point. However, she could change her mind if there is reason to believe that you will not comply with diversion. I encourage you to consider that in the future.

The only thing you can do, going forward, is to cooperate with the doctor and put yourself in the best possible position for a grant of diversion. I think that Judge Clover believes mental health diversion to be a very equitable outcome in this case, so I believe that she will grant it. I have not heard otherwise.

I also want to reiterate that neither myself, nor Casey, would ever share anything with the judge or DA that is privileged. Any communication between you and me or Casey is strictly between us. She would never be advised of any communication between us. For that reason, I would strongly encourage you, if there is something that is bothering you or upsetting you, to please reach out to us first, before you reach out to the Judge’s staff. Any communication with the Judge’s staff will be shared with the Judge.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Danielle Daroca Bell

From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:57 AM
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Re: FYI

CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

Do you think my behavior up to this point might compromise the judge's decision in granting me diversion? Because if she denies me diversion, I just can't fathom such disappointment.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 3:59 PM Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov> wrote:

There is no reason to apologize Mr. Taylor. There is no way for me to possibly know the weight you are carrying with this case. I want you to know, however, that I am here, to walk this path with you however I can and defend you to the best of me ability. That is and will remain my only priority and goal.

Please keep me updated as to when you speak to Dr. D’Ingillo.

Thanks,

Danielle

From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:16 PM
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Re: FYI

CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

Ok, Ms. Bell.

Thank you for helping me understand. Let's continue with pursuing MH diversion. I'm going to do everything in my power to keep composed between now and the next court date.

I apologize for any frustration I've caused. Thank you for your continued patience with me.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 3:03 PM Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov> wrote:

Mr. Taylor,

I have only ever had your best interest at heart. I know you don’t agree, but I promise you, that is the truth. I want to be as clear as I can in my legal advice to you going forward:

You have the absolute right to go to trial on this case. I would never stand in the way of that. If it is trial that you choose, then I will prepare to zealously represent you. We have talked about the strengths and weaknesses of your case and I am available to speak to you again about that . I can never guarantee an outcome at trial, no matter how strong I view the defense’s case.

You also have the option of mental health diversion. If you choose this path, you will receive the mental health treatment you have said you need. You will also earn an complete DISMISSAL of your case and sealing of your record. This would be a great outcome, but only if you want to do it. It comes without the risks of trial.

I do NOT believe that disseminating evidence to news outlets would be helpful or serve you in your case. I know you want to express the grave inequality you have experienced as a result of this case and I understand that, but I do not think this is the best way to accomplish this. I do not believe that releasing such information would be helpful in accomplishing any of the goals you have for yourself and you may, in the process, sabotage your own ability to (1) obtain a grant of mental health diversion (if that’s what you wish) or (2) taint a jury pool against you, this is what I was referring to when I said open yourself up to additional liabilities.

I am not trying to do anything in this case, except for protect you to the best of my abilities. As always, please feel free to respond with any questions or comments you have.

Danielle Daroca Bell

From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Re: FYI

CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

Perhaps if you can explain to me how I'm not being prejudiced in this case I can stop making things difficult for you. I'm not tha one with the law background. I need you to help me understand this process so that I don't get in my own way.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 11:21 AM Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com> wrote:

If I don't get an answer by Noon PST I'm going to click send on this video. Article has already been written.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 11:11 AM Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com> wrote:

Who cares that it was discovery? Please inform me on the rules and procedures of taking such action.

The video shows me being attacked. My face has already been put in the news so explain the potential additional liabilities to me please. What are you guys trying to hide? The fact that these 2 Armenians in Glendale attacked me and you can't afford for tha public to see it? If the public can see my mug shot in mainstream news why can't they also see I was attacked by 2 criminals? You guys are trying hard to play me and prejudice me.

Every time you respond to me you are pretty vague in your meanings. Explain tha additional liability please. What are the additional liabilities? If I'm already presumed guilty, my business and family relationships in ruins, what more damage could hurt me?

You still have not responded or clarified my question about my the letter to judicial performance not having any influence at all in my case.

Do not waste my time with vagueness. I need you to be crystal clear when you explain things to me. You must anticipate that I am reading between the lines. I hear what people say but I pay attention to what they do. Don't play with me. I need the full ramifications please.

The video doesn't contain any private information. It's tha same video that anyone can make a request for whether approved or not.

I want answers today please. Thank you.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 10:57 AM Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov> wrote:

Mr. Taylor,

I realize you are angry and I share that sentiment, however, you may not disseminate discovery to local news organizations or any outside organizations for that matter. You cannot share it. Doing so could subject you to additional liability.

Dr. D’Ingillo will be calling you by the end of the week. Please keep me updated about your conversations.

Sincerely,

Danielle Daroca Bell

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:29:54 AM
To: Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
Subject: RE: FYI

CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

Good morning

Just FYI

I'm going to send the footage of this incident to all local news tip lines this morning.

I believe the charges against me are outright discriminative and I can't fathom sitting around for another 3 full months while I can't even make money to support myself.

Victims shouldn't be charged with crimes. And I believe the prosecutor is exercising powers they don't have while hiding behind their so-called discretion.

The prosecutors office is fucking my life up by accusing me of shit they're not even sure of. They're charging me simply because they want to and not because it's justified.

If I was attacked, why should tha government get to profit off my misery and disposition? Why?

Why should I be held accountable for the poor decisions of another person?

sender notified by
Mail Track for Gmail

ThaWilsonBlock Magazine

Search This Blog

Defendant Michael Taylor Asserts Attorney-Client Privilege over The PC 730 Competency Assessment by Dr. D'Ingillo + Demands Burden of Proof on Waiver of Privilege Daroca-Bell #265746 + CA State Bar Caught Selectively Suspending Attorneys

Comments

Post a Comment

Full Archive

The Daroca-Bell Dossier