17 MAY. 2024 · Vernon Patterson has avoided his client Michael Taylor's pertinent questions and access to relevant information and evidence in case GA-1111-32-01. Mr. Patterson was allegedly hired by the Superior Court of California to shield the Los Angeles County Public Defender from legal liability while continuing to impose their interests in the defendant's case. Defendant Michael Taylor had to notarize violations of his constitutional rights and certify mail it to his attorneys and the court itself to ensure his legal interests are conveyed. Mr. Patterson is actively encouraging Taylor to prejudice his own defense but proceeding with a 2nd opinion competency assessment while ignoring significant misdated clerical errors within the initial assessment itself. 

3 MAY. 2024

3 MAY. 2024

3 MAY. 2024

3 MAY. 2024 · Source: https://www.spreaker.com/episode/mr-huntley-predetermines-interests-of-defendants-and-denies-client-s-right-to-correspondence-on-conflicts-of-interest-declared-in-his-case--59745634 ContextDefendant Michael Taylor sought clarity regarding his legal representation during a visit to the Public Defender's main office in downtown Los Angeles. In conversation with Deputy Public Defender Mr. Marcus Huntley #207357, Taylor uncovered a concerning aspect of legal practice. Mr. Huntley acknowledged that public defenders possess discretion in making strategic decisions in their clients' cases, even if those decisions diverge from the client's preferred defense strategy. Taylor argued that such decisions lack true strategic value if they result in subsequent violations of the client's constitutional rights. This dialogue highlights potential systemic issues within the Los Angeles County Public Defender's office, suggesting a need for scrutiny regarding the protection of defendants' rights. Examination of DiscussionYes, it is fair to say that the strategic decisions made by public defenders are not truly "strategic" if they naturally lead to or result in subsequent violations of their client's constitutional rights. The core fiduciary duty of a public defender is to act in the best interest of their client, ensuring that the client's constitutional rights are protected throughout the legal process. When a decision compromises these rights, it fundamentally undermines the defender's role and obligations.  1. Fiduciary Duty: Public defenders have a fiduciary duty to their clients, which includes the obligation to provide competent and diligent representation. This duty encompasses ensuring that the client's constitutional rights are upheld at all times. Any strategic decision that leads to the violation of these rights would be a breach of this duty. 2. Constitutional Rights: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel. Public defenders must ensure that their actions and decisions do not infringe upon this right. If a decision results in the violation of the client's constitutional rights, it cannot be considered a sound or lawful strategy. 3. Ethical Standards: According to the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers must avoid conflicts of interest and must not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Making decisions that violate a client's constitutional rights directly contravenes these ethical standards. 4. Impact on Case Outcome: Violations of constitutional rights can lead to significant negative outcomes for the client, including wrongful convictions, unfair trials, or unjust sentences. A decision leading to such outcomes cannot be deemed strategic because it fails to protect the client's fundamental legal interests. 5. Judicial Oversight: Courts have a responsibility to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. If a public defender's decision leads to a violation of constitutional rights, it may also attract judicial scrutiny and potentially result in the reversal of convictions or other legal remedies, further indicating that such decisions are not strategic. Strategic decisions made by public defenders must always align with the duty to protect and uphold their client's constitutional rights. Decisions that result in the violation of these rights are inherently flawed and cannot be considered strategic. Upholding constitutional protections is essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal system and ensuring justice for all defendants.

3 MAY. 2024 · This recording pertains to criminal case GA-1111-32 Upon Alternate Public Defender Hannah Mandel #333020 receiving a voicemail of defendant Michael Taylor asserting his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel on March 13th, 2024, Ms. Mandel proceeded to declare a conflict of interest via email without providing any reason. After being denied requests for clarity, defendant Michael Taylor visited the main office of the Alternate Public Defender where attorney Julia Dixon #197678 denied him the ability to report the attorney's potential misconduct in denying the client rights to transparency regarding his case and also denied him the ability to submit a written complaint to document his lack of approval for conflicts of interest that have not been substantiated by or filed in the court. This conversation is preceded by Mr. Michael Herman Salmaggi #201301, public defender in Hollywood court, declaring the first conflict of interest in direct response to defendant Michael Taylor asserting his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel via text message. Mr. Salmaggi declared the unjustified conflict of interest as a favor for Ms. Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell #265746, who prejudiced the defendant's case by misleading him to believe proceedings were pursuant to PC 1001.36 while she secretly initiated a PC 730 competency assessment that has wrongfully declared the defendant incompetent to stand trial. Because Ms. Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell, Mr. Salmaggi, and Ms. Mandel all attended Southwestern University, defendant has strong reason to believe the conflicts of interest were declared as favors for each other while the court clerk has reported no such indication of conflicts of interest being declared in the client's case.  This recording has been uploaded as a contingency to protect the legal interests of the defendant while his attorneys have deliberately prejudiced his case by violations of due process, equal protection, and effective assistance of counsel.

3 MAY. 2024

26 FEB. 2024

26 FEB. 2024

26 FEB. 2024