Judge Responds but the Records Tell the Real Story

On September 12, 2025, Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff issued her latest order in my case Morris Patrick v. County of Los Angeles, et al. The Court denied my motion for sanctions and discharged the prior Order to Show Cause. The Judge reasoned that defendants were not required to file a reply once the protective order issue appeared resolved, and she could not locate where they recently filed incomplete exhibits. In short, no sanctions this time (Click Dkt 337).

But the real story does not end with the Judge’s order. The documents themselves expose the truth and they cannot be erased.

What Pages 90 to 149 of Dkt. 307 Reveal

Within Exhibit N of Dkt. 307, pages 90 through 149 contain the evidence I provided years ago to social workers Amy Sando, Allana Reid, Stephanie Schneider, and Marlena McCormick. This evidence included text messages and Facebook Messenger records that proved I never abandoned my children and that Angela and Anna fabricated allegations against me. It also contained witness statements from roommates which were never even interviewed by DCFS, a blatant investigative failure. Medical and therapy records demonstrated compliance with every reunification requirement.

My own attorney at the time, Frederic Nicola, confirmed in writing that these medical reports and attached communications “definitely show the real side of the story” (Click Dkt 307).

Despite all this, the caseworkers ignored the evidence and pushed forward with a false narrative. That is a textbook example of deliberate indifference.

Comparing Dkt. 307 to San Bernardino County’s Records in Dkt. 335

Here is where the scandal deepens. In Dkt. 335, San Bernardino County submitted its records but only included one attachment, pretending that was the full story (Click Dkt 335).

In reality six attachments were missing. The full set of text messages, the Facebook Messenger conversations, the nanny contract proving Angela and Anna’s lies, and additional witness documentation.

By cherry picking one attachment and burying the rest, the County attempted to sanitize the record for the Court. That is not just sloppy, it is evidence suppression. This is the exact kind of misconduct condemned by Brady v. Maryland and other landmark due process cases (Click Dkt 335).

What This Means

While the Judge denied sanctions at this stage, the public record now shows the truth. I provided the County with all the necessary documentation years ago. They ignored it, hid it, and then tried to rewrite the record. The Court may hesitate to punish them right now, but a jury will see the deliberate suppression and the gamesmanship for what it is.

The Defendants’ technical shields are wearing thin. Evidence suppression is not a minor objection. It is a constitutional violation.

Closing Thoughts

The Judge’s order may seem like a setback, but in reality, it is fuel for trial. The Court preserved my filings and made clear that these issues will move forward. More importantly, by comparing Dkt. 307 pages 90 to 149 with Dkt. 335, the gap is undeniable. Six attachments gone.

But not gone forever, because I kept them, and now the public sees them.

The truth is louder than their cover ups.

Now I wait for the Court’s decision on the motions for summary judgment. That ruling will determine the next stage, and whether the jury will finally be allowed to see everything the defendants tried so hard to hide.