Evidence of Judicial Misconduct by Judges Suzette Louise Clover and Ronald Owen Kaye in People v. Michael Taylor (GA1111-32)

Below is evidence suppressed by Los Angeles Superior Court that proves that defendant Michael Bernard Taylor Jr. has been subjected to potentially falsified competency proceedings in criminal case GA1111-32 for over 3 court hearings now. Judge Ronald Owen Kaye, presiding judge in Hollywood court, has substantiated unjustified conflicts of interest without reason by the Los Angeles County Public Defender. He has also ignored preexisting violations of the defendant's constitutional rights after being made legally aware of readily provable violations that have occurred during his pending criminal case. 

It is clear that the court ordering public defense counsel to withhold copies of the assessment and deny all the defendant's requests for access while continuing to subject him to competency proceedings that are front-dated by approximately 10 months amounts to judicial misconduct. Due to a conflict of interest with impartial judiciaries within Los Angeles Superior Courts, the defendant is being coerced by Judge Ronald Owen Kaye into providing potentially damning information directly to the prosecutor without being given the opportunity or ability to make statutory objections or investigations into violations of my constitutional rights. This is because the ineffective assistance of counsel suffered by the defendant has been a natural result of Judicial misconduct by Judges Suzette Louise Clover and Ronald Owen Kaye. 

This information has been released to protect the legal interests of defendant Michael Bernard Taylor Jr. in case GA1111-32, who has been reasonable in ensuring fairness and the upholding and safeguarding of his constitutional rights throughout legal proceedings. The documents below are actively being suppressed by The Los Angeles County Public Defender who hired bar panel attorney Vernon Patterson to misrepresent the interests of the defendant against his will.

The question is, who is responsible here? The defendant advocating for his constitutional protections or the attorneys for denying their client due process? Should the defendant suffer a prejudiced case to protect the reputations of attorneys who did it on purpose?

*Context: The following assessment (results) were presented in Pasadena Court Department F (Judge Suzette Clover) by Deputy Public Defender Ms. Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell on February 14th, 2024, predating other critical dates within the assessment that question it's legal validity.